Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Morality of using a Nuclear Weapon

Rate this topic


smathy

Recommended Posts

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that.

I said: “[v]ictims are not responsible for the evils perpetrated by their oppressor.” But I explicitly stated that: “[e]very person must suffer the consequences of the actions of the government they allow to exist.”

In other words: The citizens of a country are absolutely responsible for the kind of government they allow to exist. The truly innocent are not responsible for the evils of their government but they most certainly are responsible for its existence.

That would mean that Ayn Rand was responsible for the existence of the government of the Soviet Union, and Anne Frank was responsible for existence of the Nazi occupation government of Holland.

This is a link to, “In our name”, the thread I mentioned before. It contains all of my principled argument on this subject. It’s short, please read it. If you still have questions, ask, or, quote one of the many enumerated principles and tell me why it is wrong. I quote myself from the same thread:

The only way a dictatorship stays in power is by force so the only way to remove it is by force. That force should be applied by the citizens of that country. If they are unable to change their government and it threatens a free nation, then the implied sanction they give it by not fleeing leaves them exposed not just to the depredations of the dictator but to the force free nations must apply in order not to suffer similar depredations.

By that criterion we would have to conclude that 100% of the current population of N. Korea gives its sanction to the dictatorship there. Otherwise, they would have just packed their suitcases and walked across the DMZ into S. Korea.

The US government derives its sovereignty from US citizens only and we may take back that sovereignty at any time. The people of other nations maintain the same right. The only moral purpose of the US government is to protect the rights of US citizens (the only people who grant it sovereignty).

Okay, I hereby take back that sovereignty this instant.

As I explain in the aforementioned thread: rights are moral sanctions to positive action. Just as your right to life requires that you take action to live, so your right to liberty requires that you take action in order to be free.

Suppose a resident of N. Korea does not take action in order to be free. Does his right to life disappear? Would Kim Jong Il then be innocent of rights violations with regard to anyone among his subjects who did not take action to be free? If A kidnaps B, and B does not struggle, has A violated B’s right to life if B dies in captivity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That would mean that Ayn Rand was responsible for the existence of the government of the Soviet Union, and Anne Frank was responsible for existence of the Nazi occupation government of Holland.

Yes. Which is just what Ayn Rand said in the quote I gave you: “... and who keeps their government in power? The citizens of that country. Including the worst dictatorships.” When speaking of her own situation Ayn Rand said (I am paraphrasing): If the U.S. had attacked the USSR, as they rightfully could have, and she had been killed by a bomb, while it would have regrettable, she would understand the necessity of such action.

The reason I talked about the responsibilities associated with rights last time was to illustrate why this is so.

If your right to life requires nothing of you to sustain your life, then it must be someone else's responsibility to provide you sustenance. If your right to liberty requires nothing of you when you’re oppressed, then it must be someone else's responsibility to emancipate you. Both of these are expressions of altruism, the antithesis of selfishness and they contradict the very notion of rights. For, if it is someone else's responsibility to sustain your life, enable your liberty and provide you with property, then they, of course, have no right to provide these things for themselves.

Rather, your rights require you to take action and they require nothing of anyone else, except that they leave you alone. Rights require that if Ayn Rand and Anne Frank wanted to change their situation it was their responsibility to take action to do so. They both did.

So, logic dictates and rights require that, if Ayn Rand and Anne Frank wanted to be free of their oppressive governments, then they either had to resist it or flee it. They both exercised their rights.

By that criterion we would have to conclude that 100% of the current population of N. Korea gives its sanction to the dictatorship there. Otherwise, they would have just packed their suitcases and walked across the DMZ into S. Korea.

Thousands, perhaps millions have escaped. Millions more have been executed and millions more are in concentration camps. But whether they sanction their government, whether they are innocent or guilty doesn’t matter because we don’t have a magical bomb that kills only the guilty.

So if the government of N. Korea threatens to treat us as they treat their own people we are under no obligation to sacrifice ourselves and accept the same fate as a people unwilling to exercise their rights.

Okay, I hereby take back that sovereignty this instant.

Here you are snidely acknowledging my point?

What country are you living in now? And are you more free than you were in the US? Or perhaps you are still here and you are passively waiting for 150 million people to agree with you. It won’t work.

In a free country the only moral way to change the government is to exercise your rights and convince half the people that you are right. Good luck.

Suppose a resident of N. Korea does not take action in order to be free. Does his right to life disappear? Would Kim Jong Il then be innocent of rights violations with regard to anyone among his subjects who did not take action to be free? If A kidnaps B, and B does not struggle, has A violated B’s right to life if B dies in captivity?

As I said before every individual retains their rights whether their government respects those rights or not. Now, what do you propose they do with those rights? Shall we print them on playing cards and have a game of poker? Rights are unalienable so we can judge Kim Jong Il on his actions which violate those rights but we can also judge those who take no action with regard to their rights.

Finally, let me change your analogy slightly and ask you what your course of action would be:

A criminal with a gun breaks into your house. He warns you not to alert the police and threatens to kill you unless you feed him. He likes it at your house and decides to stay. What would you do?

Perhaps initially you comply with his demands but what if he stayed for weeks or months or years? Would you resist at all? Would you attempt to subdue him or escape? Would it be rational to go about your business as if nothing was wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc K.:

Yes. Which is just what Ayn Rand said in the quote I gave you: “... and who keeps their government in power? The citizens of that country. Including the worst dictatorships.” When speaking of her own situation Ayn Rand said (I am paraphrasing): If the U.S. had attacked the USSR, as they rightfully could have, and she had been killed by a bomb, while it would have regrettable, she would understand the necessity of such action.

Eric M.:

Why not say that every person on the planet is responsible for all the world’s evils and foolishness? After all, if I’m responsible for the fact that there are thugs in the government who steal the income of millions, why wouldn’t I also be responsible for the fact that some people steal from banks? That some men beat their wives? That some kids vandalize school buildings?

Marc K.:

If your right to life requires nothing of you to sustain your life, then it must be someone else's responsibility to provide you sustenance. If your right to liberty requires nothing of you when you’re oppressed, then it must be someone else's responsibility to emancipate you. Both of these are expressions of altruism, the antithesis of selfishness and they contradict the very notion of rights. For, if it is someone else's responsibility to sustain your life, enable your liberty and provide you with property, then they, of course, have no

Eric M.:

In my dictionary, “responsible” means “being a source or cause.” I reject the idea that I am a source or cause of the income tax, the welfare state, and big government. I will accept responsibility only for my own actions.

Marc K.:

Rather, your rights require you to take action and they require nothing of anyone else, except that they leave you alone. Rights require that if Ayn Rand and Anne Frank wanted to change their situation it was their responsibility to take action to do so. They both did.

Eric M.:

“Rights require”? If people don’t take the required action, does it follow that they do not have rights? If my neighbor Charlie does not take action to try to advance laissez faire, does it mean that he has no right to his Mercedes? And if he has no right to it, may I take it?

Marc K.:

So, logic dictates and rights require that, if Ayn Rand and Anne Frank wanted to be free of their oppressive governments, then they either had to resist it or flee it. They both exercised their rights.

Eric M.:

Anne Frank did not flee her Nazi-occupied country. Therefore, by your logic, it must follow that she was responsible for the goons who starved her to death in a concentration camp.

Marc K.:

Thousands, perhaps millions have escaped. Millions more have been executed and millions more are in concentration camps. But whether they sanction their government, whether they are innocent or guilty doesn’t matter because we don’t have a magical bomb that kills only the guilty.

Eric M.:

What does guilt matter once you’re convinced that everyone is responsible for the government they have? If everyone in N. Korea is responsible for the communist dictatorship there, then a bomb that killed everyone in N. Korea would be killing precisely 100% of everyone who was responsible for its evil government.

Marc K.:

So if the government of N. Korea threatens to treat us as they treat their own people we are under no obligation to sacrifice ourselves and accept the same fate as a people unwilling to exercise their rights.

Eric M.:

By that logic no government ever violates individual rights. If every individual is responsible for the government he has, and powerful governments only arise because people are “unwilling to exercise their rights,” then it must follow that all governments, even those like N. Korea, are operating with the consent of their people. Ergo, N. Korea is a country that respects individual rights.

Marc K.:

Here you are snidely acknowledging my point?

Eric M.:

Earlier you wrote that with regard to the U.S. “the only people who grant it sovereignty” are its citizens. I just withdrew my sovereignty. That must mean the U.S. no longer rules me, no?

Marc K.:

What country are you living in now? And are you more free than you were in the US? Or perhaps you are still here and you are passively waiting for 150 million people to agree with you. It won’t work.

In a free country the only moral way to change the government is to exercise your rights and convince half the people that you are right. Good luck.

Eric M.:

I live in the U.S. and do not regard a government that takes 40% of my income to be free.

Marc K.:

As I said before every individual retains their rights whether their government respects those rights or not.

Eric M.:

Great. That means that subjects of N. Korean tyranny have the right not to have force initiated against them.

Marc K.:

Now, what do you propose they do with those rights? Shall we print them on playing cards and have a game of poker? Rights are unalienable so we can judge Kim Jong Il on his actions which violate those rights but we can also judge those who take no action with regard to their rights.

Eric M.:

Yeah, I’d like to know what action the children of N. Korea have taken against Kim Jong Il.

Marc K.:

Finally, let me change your analogy slightly and ask you what your course of action would be:

A criminal with a gun breaks into your house. He warns you not to alert the police and threatens to kill you unless you feed him. He likes it at your house and decides to stay. What would you do?

Eric M.:

Serve him a bowl of apple sauce loaded with barbiturates.

Marc K.:

Perhaps initially you comply with his demands but what if he stayed for weeks or months or years? Would you resist at all? Would you attempt to subdue him or escape? Would it be rational to go about your business as if nothing was wrong?

Eric M.:

According to your position, I’m responsible for him no matter what actions I take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People, do my eyes really see what is going on in this thread?

I have not read all the posts in here, but most of the posts i did read argue on who was the victim and why? Was America moral or immoral in (nuclear) bombing Hiroshima?

If the following argument has already been put forward, then excuse my ignorance and laziness.

All these arguments are completely out of place....i believe that the right question to pose is should anyone that being America in this case use NUCLEAR energy for military purposes? Should we justify the Manhattan project?

No doubt that the American Government must protect its troops and civilians, so do the Japanese, BUT suggesting to use Nuclear warheads to avoid the killing of innocent lives is absolutely false beyond reasonable doubt.

Does anyone in here now the aftermath of a nuclear explosion? The disease spread to the Earth?

Americans actions besides violating the ecosystem of the entire planet, created hatred againsts its own state which will not be forgotten either in the near or distant future.........."what comes around; goes around". So they say.

So the protection of short-term American citizens could have been achieved by either peaceful means(diplomacy) or other military means using stealths, tanks and whatever other weapons are relatively respectful to the environment and the long-term safety of future generations of Americas.

Am i a color blind person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT suggesting to use Nuclear warheads to avoid the killing of innocent lives is absolutely false beyond reasonable doubt.

Does anyone in here now the aftermath of a nuclear explosion? The disease spread to the Earth?

What in the world are you talking about? Atom bombs used against Japan were extremely well motivated. Did you read any of the preceding posts? This question of the aftermath of a nuclear explosion is completely irrelevant. Others have suggested that you read something about Objectivism, something I strongly recommend as well. But your problem is even more fundamental: you need to learn something about history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not color blind, but definitely very confused. Assuming you care to learn anything, here are the answers to your questions.

I doubt that anyone on this forum would undertake to discuss nuclear armaments without knowledge of their effects. Radioactive fallout is not a disease, and the Earth is not a living organism so it can't get sick, anyway. Any "ecosystem" that does not include humans and THEIR actions, including bombing the crap out of a ruthlessly belligerent country, is an invalid concept.

As for creating hatred against America, this statement is blatantly ridiculous. Firstly, Japan is one of our best allies. The Japanese people I've met find Americans endlessly amusing, and they are very friendly. Anyone that ISN'T Japanese can go soak their head regarding this issue. Secondly, if mass slaughter and destruction are the determinors of "hatred" I think we Americans won't be able to get near the fire for the Nazis, Soviets, Chinese, Aztecs, Khmer Rouge, environmentalists (DDT ban), and the French.

Did I mention Smallpox? Preventing the necessity of taking Japan inch by bitterly fought inch and killing how many tens of thousands of Americans in the process sounds like an excellent plan to ME. We'd thrown EVERYTHING else at them. Nothing less than total horror, which Japan had EARNED by its policies at that point, would have sufficed.

Look up Nanjing and say again how "innocent" anyone supporting Emperor Hirohito at that point was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People, do my eyes really see what is going on in this thread?

Does anyone in here now the aftermath of a nuclear explosion? The disease spread to the Earth?

Americans actions besides violating the ecosystem of the entire planet..............

It sounds like you are a victim (or a proponent) of the long-term effort to demonize the use of nuclear weapons by conjuring up the notion that nuclear explosions would cause catastrophic, global environmental problems.

To date, there have been over 580 above-ground nuclear weapons tests. Yet the planet's ecosystem is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you are a victim (or a proponent) of the long-term effort to demonize the use of nuclear weapons by conjuring up the notion that nuclear explosions would cause catastrophic, global environmental problems.

To date, there have been over 580 above-ground nuclear weapons tests.  Yet the planet's ecosystem is fine.

But, fortunately, those test detonations were not all done at the same time. And some of those tests had not so benign consequences. On March 1, 1954, a 15-megaton bomb was exploded on Bikini Atoll. An unexpected shift in wind direction brought fallout to the Marshall Islands, over 200 kilometers away. Most of the children on Rongelap Island subsequently developed thyroid tumors and lesions and other chronic medical problems.

A nuclear exchange between major powers that produced explosions in the 5,000 to 10,000 megaton range would be catastrophic not just for the billion or so who would die immediately but also for another billion downwind who would succumb slowly within the coming weeks and months from radiation poisoning.

One does not have to subscribe to theories of nuclear winter to recognize the hell on earth that full scale nuclear war would bring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One does not have to subscribe to theories of nuclear winter to recognize the hell on earth that full scale nuclear war would bring.

You are making a straw man argument. No one is saying that a full-scale nuclear war between "major powers" would be without effect.

Rather, editorgialis seems to be condemning the use of even one weapon (Hiroshima) on the grounds (at least partly) that such an explosion would "violate the ecosystem" of the entire planet. The 580 tests done to date -- without destroying the earth's ecosystem -- demonstrates otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making a straw man argument.  No one is saying that a full-scale nuclear war between "major powers" would be without effect.

Rather, editorgialis seems to be condemning the use of even one weapon (Hiroshima) on the grounds (at least partly) that such an explosion would "violate the ecosystem" of the entire planet. The 580 tests done to date -- without destroying the earth's ecosystem -- demonstrates otherwise.

No strawman at all. Editorgialis wrote, "Does anyone in here [k]now the aftermath of a nuclear explosion? The disease spread to the Earth?" In fact, disease was very much part of the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, explosions that were quite small in comparison with the strength of current bombs and warheads.

An "eco-system" is a group of organisms and their environment in a functional relationship. Since humans are by any measurement organisms, it can be easily demonstrated that the atom bombs dropped on Japan and various nuclear tests since then have had a detrimental effect on specific eco-systems.

Speaking of strawmen, note that Editorgialis made no claim about nukes “destroying the earth's ecosystem,” only that they "violate the ecosystem" of the entire planet. That statement can hardly be dismissed out of hand. Atmospheric fallout from old nuclear tests is one of many worldwide sources of ionizing radiation that is harmful to all living creatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric M.:

“Rights require”?  If people don’t take the required action, does it follow that they do not have rights?

This is what it comes down to:

In order to realize the benefits of your rights, is anything required of you? In other words, do you have any responsibilities with respect to exercising your rights? Must you take action in order to realize your rights?

Eric M., you must answer this question explicitly, not for me, for yourself. If you need guidance I recommend “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Ayn Rand. It is an excellent explication of the Objectivist ethics. In particular I suggest the essays: The Objectivist Ethics and Man’s Rights.

Your answer to the above questions has tremendous implications upon your entire philosophy since rights are derived from a code of ethics which is based on reality and man’s nature.

The only way to arrive at a concept of rights is to start with an ethics of rational self interest. Answering the above questions in anything but the affirmative necessitates an ethics of self sacrifice and a politics of socialism, communism, nazism or some other form of slavery, all of which negate the very concept of rights. If you think your rights to life and property require nothing of you but to sit on your sofa and watch TV, then you are a parasite and potential slave master. So answer carefully.

And if you do answer, please, stay away from unprincipled argument for argument’s sake and the intellectual dishonesty you display below:

Eric M.:

In my dictionary, “responsible” means “being a source or cause.”  I reject the idea that I am a source or cause of the income tax, the welfare state, and big government. 

There is only one definition of “responsible”? Ohhh, you must mean the “Official Dictionary” by Eric Mathis. I found your definition along with six others on Dictionary.com:

RESPONSIBLE adj.

1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.

2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority: a responsible position within the firm.

3. Being a source or cause.

4. Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior.

5. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.

6. Based on or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking: responsible journalism.

7. Having the means to pay debts or fulfill obligations.

8. Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the parliament.

Notice how every definition corresponds directly with my usage of the word as demonstrated multiple times here:

- It is the responsibility of the citizens of a country to choose their government. When they choose poorly or passively allow their government to become threatening, it is their responsibility to right themselves.

These are the right of all people along with their concomitant responsibilities

The people are responsible to accept the consequences for the actions of the government they allow to exist.

The reason I talked about the responsibilities associated with rights last time was to illustrate why this is so.

So ignoring the context I explicitly provided you cherry pick a definition from some unknown, single definition dictionary??? Come on.

Even your definition (and my argument) is validated by the Declaration of Independence which names “the people” as government’s source by right, along with their responsibilities, to wit:

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,”...

... [when a government], “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,”

Ignoring the altruistic “duty” does not change the fact that if you don’t like your government then it is up to you to do something about it. As Ayn Rand said: wishing won’t make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what it comes down to:

In order to realize the benefits of your rights, is anything required of you? In other words, do you have any responsibilities with respect to exercising your rights? Must you take action in order to realize your rights?

Rights are derived from man’s nature, not from his ability to prevent others from aggressing against him. But let’s examine your theory. If we say people do not have rights when they don’t take the “required action,” it follows that no rights can ever be violated. For example, if a person in N. Korea has not taken the “required action,” she has no rights over her person or property. By the same token, the only N. Koreans who do have rights are the ones who have succeeded in escaping N. Korea, i.e. in taking the “required action.” Ergo, the dictator of N. Korea has violated no one’s rights, because those who remain there have not taken the “required action,” and those who do have rights are no longer under the control of the dictator. Therefore, the dictator of N. Korea would be a non-rights violator.

Eric M., you must answer this question explicitly, not for me, for yourself. If you need guidance I recommend “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Ayn Rand. It is an excellent explication of the Objectivist ethics. In particular I suggest the essays: The Objectivist Ethics and Man’s Rights.

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve read both essays, but I missed the part where Rand argues that people do not have rights when they don’t take the required action. Where's that passage again?

The only way to arrive at a concept of rights is to start with an ethics of rational self interest. Answering the above questions in anything but the affirmative necessitates an ethics of self sacrifice and a politics of socialism, communism, nazism or some other form of slavery, all of which negate the very concept of rights. If you think your rights to life and property require nothing of you but to sit on your sofa and watch TV, then you are a parasite and potential slave master. So answer carefully.

My lazy rich nephew Dean pretty much does nothing but sit on the sofa and watch TV. Therefore, if I follow you, Dean has no rights to life and property. If he has no rights, then his rights cannot be violated. Therefore, I could break into Dean’s house and take his stereo, TV, and CD collection without violating anyone’s rights, right?

And if you do answer, please, stay away from unprincipled argument for argument’s sake and the intellectual dishonesty you display below:

There is only one definition of “responsible”? Ohhh, you must mean the “Official Dictionary” by Eric Mathis. I found your definition along with six others on Dictionary.com:

If you had earlier provided a definition for “responsible” it might have been intellectually dishonest to substitute another definition for it. Since you offered no definition, how was I supposed to know which one you had in mind? Telepathy?

Notice how every definition corresponds directly with my usage of the word as demonstrated multiple times here:

So ignoring the context I explicitly provided you cherry pick a definition from some unknown, single definition dictionary??? Come on.

The definition I cited is also consistent with “responsibility” as used in this sentence: “It is the responsibility of the citizens of a country to choose their government.” I.e., people are the “source or cause” of their government. Therefore, your allegation of “intellectual dishonesty” and “ignoring the context” is completely baseless.

Even your definition (and my argument) is validated by the Declaration of Independence which names “the people” as government’s source by right, along with their responsibilities, to wit:

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,”...

... [when a government], “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,”

Ignoring the altruistic “duty” does not change the fact that if you don’t like your government then it is up to you to do something about it. As Ayn Rand said: wishing won’t make it so.

To this historical event, let’s apply your theory that people do not have rights when they don’t take the required action. Now it is historical fact that in 1775, the American colonists had not yet overthrown their British masters. To use your phrase, they had not taken the “required action.” Therefore, by your theory, prior to the overthrow of the British regime in America, the colonists did not have any rights. In the absence of rights, rights cannot be violated.

Why, then, would the author of the Declaration of Independence refer to a "long Train of Abuses and Usurpations"? How can there be "abuses" of people who have no rights?

Also, the Declaration makes clear that “all Men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.” Now, if rights are inalienable and come at creation, then such rights would exist whether an individual took “required action” or not. Even my lazy rich nephew Dean would enjoy inalienable rights.

And, by the way, I know you’re probably busy, but when you get around to it, I’d would enjoy reading your responses to the questions I raised in post #103:

Why not say that every person on the planet is responsible for all the world’s evils and foolishness? After all, if I’m responsible for the fact that there are thugs in the government who steal the income of millions, why wouldn’t I also be responsible for the fact that some people steal from banks? That some men beat their wives? That some kids vandalize school buildings?

If my neighbor Charlie does not take action to try to advance laissez faire, does it mean that he has no right to his Mercedes? And if he has no right to it, may I take it?

Edited by Eric Mathis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
No strawman at all.  Editorgialis wrote, "Does anyone in here [k]now the aftermath of a nuclear explosion? The disease spread to the Earth?"  In fact, disease was very much part of the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, explosions that were quite small in comparison with the strength of current bombs and warheads.

You are switching between what you said and what editorgialis said.

Your previous statement was: "One does not have to subscribe to theories of nuclear winter to recognize the hell on earth that full scale nuclear war would bring."

I did not claim that "full scale nuclear war" would not be "hell on earth", nor did I claim that the 580 nuclear detonations proved such a thing. You are, therefore, offering a straw man argument, i.e. you are arguing against a position that I did not take -- namely that full scale nuclear warfare would be without effect. All of which proves nothing and leaves my original argument intact.

An "eco-system" is a group of organisms and their environment in a functional relationship.  Since humans are by any measurement organisms, it can be easily demonstrated that the atom bombs dropped on Japan and various nuclear tests since then have had a detrimental effect on specific eco-systems.
There is no question that the Hiroshima bomb had an effect on Hiroshima.

But did it have an effect on "the entire planet's ecosystem"? I have seen no evidence to support such a notion.

Speaking of strawmen, note that Editorgialis made no claim about nukes “destroying the earth's ecosystem,” only that they "violate the ecosystem" of the entire planet.  .
Granted that "violating the ecosystem of the entire planet" (the exact words editorgialis used) does not necessarily mean destroying it. But unless it means harming or damaging "the entire planet's ecosystem" in some significant fashion, why bring it up? How can a harmless "violation" be an argument against nuclear weapons?

And if even a single nuclear blast significantly harms "the entire planet's ecosystem", then why haven't 580 such blasts produced a huge amount of damage? Where is the evidence that there has been any significant damage to "the entire planet's ecosystem" from these blasts?

That statement can hardly be dismissed out of hand. Atmospheric fallout from old nuclear tests is one of many worldwide sources of ionizing radiation that is harmful to all living creatures
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...