The US war in Iraq

[Marc K.]

That sounds very facist. Ditto Mark K as well.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? If disagreeing, with what exactly?

[intellectualammo]

It worked with Hitler as it has in several other similar situations (this isn't rocket science or anything, it's always been the same methods and schemas time and time again all throughout history) and it worked most recently with Kim Jong Il in North Korea...we really need to stop beating our political heads against the stone of absurdity and set action to word and put a definitive end to all of the B.S. in this world

What consititutes to you as the "B.S." in the world? How (exactly) would you propose to "put a definitive end" to "all" of it?

so that we can more so focus on the progression of mankind as a whole without all of these needless, futile distractions that are only delaying the inevitable capitalist progression of society...all society.

Inevitable?

Edited October 12, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Mammon]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? If disagreeing, with what exactly?

I'm agreeing with your observation about the conflicting statements archimedes made.

[-archimedes-]

I consider the "head" of the snake to be its ideological center.

I do not foresee an ability that allows anyone to regulate the thoughts of others (other than the immoral/unethical process of brain washing/psychological conditioning), nor would I endorse such practice...one's thoughts are, and should remain, one's own.

In my opinion, the only way the "movement" will be neutered is by showing its adherents that there is no future in it. By showing them in no uncertain terms that any attempt to spread their irrational ideology by force will be met with unrelenting retaliatory force. By showing them that their ideology means death.

With you on this account I agree as it is often in a case of this degree of nihilistic fervor that such terminal action is required...One must fight fire with fire, extremist with extremism, and though this method of absolution entails it's own consequences for our consciousness, our sense of propriety, they are deemed collateral, necessary evil.

With that said and the topic of idealism aside, I fell that it should be obvious that a prospective terrorist cannot put their thoughts into action without the proper finances available...financial neutering curtails all manner of activist idealism.

Do you not see a conflict between these two statements?

While I understand the distinction between my use of the terms/phrases: "mankind as a whole" & "society", vs. Rand's usage of "personal interests" & "private fortunes", I fail to see any conflict with the understanding that the disruption and dissolution of such terroristic practices are as beneficial to the "personal interests" of the individual in their pursuit of "private fortunes" as they are to "society"/"mankind" as a whole...disruption of economic flow is as fatal for one as it is for all.

Plus, I fail to see an issue with a "society" of enterprising entrepreneurs, albeit, mankind as a whole, and see that as a desired/logical progression of Rand's capitalistic ideology...perhaps you could point one or two out to me?

[-archimedes-]

That sounds very facist. Ditto Mark K as well.

While I, myself, fail to see any correlation, I find it very interesting that you could interpret my comments so, please explain..."?"

[Mammon]

While I, myself, fail to see any correlation, I find it very interesting that you could interpret my comments so, please explain..."?"

Plus, I fail to see an issue with a "society" of enterprising entrepreneurs, albeit, mankind as a whole, and see that as a desired/logical progression of Rand's capitalistic ideology...perhaps you could point one or two out to me?

Because the way you put these things sounds like you don't know the difference between the books and the bullets. How do you suggest we bring this all about and, in your own words "put a definitive end to all of the B.S. in this world"? Are we going to invade every retarded backwards country and force them to do things we, or the people in Washington, feel they should do?

That's what I mean that it sounds facist. People need to choice to live free, if they elected a dictator it's really out of our hands unless that dictator threatens us, at the moment, because we are just one country.

Edit: I mean, give the people a chance to figure out how to end their own B.S. It's better that way, if it's not directly threatening.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Mammon

[-archimedes-]

What consititutes to you as the "B.S." in the world?

Well, politicians for one...I mean, do any of us really believe that but a handful of people can accurately convey the needs and desires of billions of people, let alone the thousands to millions of their own constituents? Or is it that the conventional constitutional provision for such office, while most beneficial at the time, has now become outmoded with the explosive population increase of modern day to the point that what we now have is a system in place that makes it easier for certain interest groups to sway the opinion/vote of an individual with bribery, extortion, blackmail, sexual favor, etc., etc. (all from the headlines), whereas such would not be so easily accomplished with the people?

But that's more so of a political nature and this isn't the political forum.

Truth is, the more I think about it, the more that I could come up with that could readily be deemed as "B.S. in the world" that would likely lead to a very lengthy, exhaustive discussion touching on a variety of aspects of what all makes up our world and the processes/methodologies/dictum's, etc., by which it is governed, but for now (with the exception of the slight blurb above) I'll keep my comments within the context of the current topic of discussion, i.e., "terrorism", and will say that I find it B.S. that individuals engage in such inevitably fatalistic pursuits.

After all, just what was that bin Laden hoping to accomplish anyway? I mean, other than the permanent vilification of the Iraqi people, the disruption of finances into his country, the embargo of international trade with his country, the destruction of infrastructure and commodities distribution and services for his people, the decimation of his country men/women/children as collateral casualties of the war that his "idealism" &/or actions started? Just what was/is his goal?!

He seems upset by our (America's) capitalism, yet it is our country that has brought wealth, prosperity and an actual economy to his financially withering country with the establishment of the oil trade, a commodity that they didn't even know they had. Is the guy such a purist that he's unable to grasp the boon that such trade has been for his country? I think not as he comes from money/his family is in the oil/trade business...perhaps he is merely a hand-biting hypocrite?

Then, perhaps it is that I simply do not understand terrorism...?

We then turn to our (America's) handling of the war...evidence shows that we knew, well in advance, of what was going to go down, even how it was going to go down, so why did almost 3,000 people (2,948) have to die? Why are our troops over there still having to die? And then, why is it that we are still unable to catch this guy? I know that we have the technology and resources to do it...perhaps it is that his money shields him much the same way as we've seen numerous other millionaire and billionaire's (albeit even those of political office) monies shield them from persecution for their offenses?!?

I call all of this "B.S." Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but I am at least honest enough with myself to pose the question: perhaps it is the the only B.S. with this world is that I do not have the answers to the questions that I ask...care to enlighten me?

How (exactly) would you propose to "put a definitive end" to "all" of it?

Help everyone to attain a higher level of awareness of the issues that surround them and their lives and to encourage in them a more active participation in what all shapes and controls their world(s), even if it be little more than to whisper into the ear of the authorities the location of the terrorists as their decimation is as beneficial to the one as it is to the many.

Inevitable?

Yes, I foresee widespread, societal capitalism in one form or another wherein all would have a stake in the benefit of the one, and vice-versa...why not? Edited October 15, 2007 by -archimedes-

[-archimedes-]

Because the way you put these things sounds like you don't know the difference between the books and the bullets. How do you suggest we bring this all about and, in your own words "put a definitive end to all of the B.S. in this world"? Are we going to invade every retarded backwards country and force them to do things we, or the people in Washington, feel they should do?

I apologize for anything on my part that caused you to misconstrue the intent/meaning of my earlier comments (I often run into this problem when I attempt to convey an idea, perception or concept of my own to another), I now understand what you meant by the fascism remark, though I thought that I covered/explained my position in my earlier reply to Marc K.?

Perhaps my comment to him would serve you as well:

"I do not foresee an ability that allows anyone to regulate the thoughts of others (other than the immoral/unethical process of brain washing/psychological conditioning), nor would I endorse such practice...one's thoughts are, and should remain, one's own."

That's what I mean that it sounds facist. People need to choice to live free, if they elected a dictator it's really out of our hands unless that dictator threatens us, at the moment, because we are just one country.

Well, to clarify here, I do not believe that the people of any country "chose" to elect a dictator. The very definition of the term alone negates even an implied consent on the behalf of the people of this or that country for that person's succession to office as their (a dictator's) mentality is to merely take what they chose via the subjugation of that country's people, often through the application of deadly force.

Edit: I mean, give the people a chance to figure out how to end their own B.S. It's better that way, if it's not directly

threatening.

Agreed, and I believe that it is the policy of America to allow other countries to work out their own inter-personal/governmental issues without our intervention, i.e., unless that country requests aid, anarchistic parties of that country interferes with our relationship or dealings with that or another country, or airs their dirty laundry on our shores...live and let live.

[-archimedes-]

Our most efficient and affordable weapon is nuclear bombardment, but I don't think our Fearless Leaders have the stomach or the heart for it.

Bob Kolker

I cannot believe, in this age of intellectual, scientific and common sense awareness, that anyone would advocate the use of nuclear armament, knowing that everyone, all around the world, would suffer the consequences, if but from the atomic fallout alone.

[Inspector]

I cannot believe, in this age of intellectual, scientific and common sense awareness, that anyone would advocate the use of nuclear armament, knowing that everyone, all around the world, would suffer the consequences, if but from the atomic fallout alone.

That's a myth borne of the hippies of the 60's. As someone who has studied all things nuclear in his youth, I can tell you that airburst use of nuclear weapons does not produce a large or lasting fallout (and groundbursts are only used to crack hardened underground targets, such as ICBM silos). If the above were true, we would all be poisoned from all the nuclear tests that were done.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Inspector

[intellectualammo]

Yes, I foresee widespread, societal capitalism in one form or another wherein all would have a stake in the benefit of the one, and vice-versa...why not?

You said "inevitable capitalist progression of society...all society." I simply questioned your use of the word "inevitable". It is not inevitable, variables can prevent that "inevitability".

[Marc K.]

...we really need to stop beating our political heads against the stone of absurdity and set action to word and put a definitive end to all of the B.S. in this world so that we can more so focus on the progression of mankind as a whole without all of these needless, futile distractions that are only delaying the inevitable capitalist progression of society...all society. [bold emphasis added]

The idea that "mankind as a whole" should be the focus of any individual's efforts is morally repugnant. Even politicians, who's job it is to consider the principles of a proper social system, must always be governed by and never violate the rights of the individuals who make up the society.

There is nothing "inevitable" about issues open to human volition.

Well, to clarify here, I do not believe that the people of any country "chose" to elect a dictator.

How about Nazi Germany?

The very definition of the term alone negates even an implied consent on the behalf of the people

On the contrary, anyone who lives under a dictator and doesn't resist him, does in fact give their implied consent to his rule. How do we know that? Because they continue to live there under his rule.

Agreed, and I believe that it is the policy of America to allow other countries to work out their own inter-personal/governmental issues without our intervention, i.e., unless that country requests aid,

Would the fact that a country had requested aid have any bearing on whether America should intervene or not?

archimedes:

I have read through most of your posts now and I must say that they are littered with just as many anti-Objectivist sentiments as expressed above. Apparently you understand that this Forum is dedicated to the study of Objectivism since you have quoted Ayn Rand. Do you think that you understand and are expressing agreement with Objectivist principles in your writings? If so, I must say: I disagree.

[~Sophia~]

The idea that "mankind as a whole" should be the focus of any individual's efforts is morally repugnant.

Well maybe not the sole focus but....something similar came up during one of the informal discussions we were fortunate to have with Dr. Ridpath. One person advocated shrugging, of buying somewhere a piece of land to start an Objectivist society, of leaving the irrational behind. Dr. Ridpath agrued against it, providing various arguments as to why it would not be a good idea (one of them included safety concerns - given current technology). But you maybe interested to know that he also said (although this was not the major reason) that although he would not sacrifice his life for it - if he could positively contribute to the future of mankind - to stir it in the right direction - he would - that that is a part of living a rational life. He said that shrugging by people of reason/ability would surely destroy mankind (no lifeline - no life). Interesting isn't it?

[intellectualammo]

The idea that "mankind as a whole" should be the focus of any individual's efforts is morally repugnant.

I find that if the focus of an individuals efforts is getting ideas out to "mankind as a whole" it is not morally repugnant at all, but instead can be a very selfish thing to do.

Like what Bernstein said in The Capitalist Manifesto (in the introduction part I think, I don't have the book with me right now) he has (to paraphrase) a purely selfish stake in promoting capitalism/the ideas presented in his book.

[Marc K.]

I must thank both Sophia and intellectualammo for pointing out the imprecision in my words. Let me amend my statement:

The idea that "mankind as a whole" should be the focus of any individual's efforts is morally repugnant.

To:

The idea that "mankind as a whole" should be the main focus of an individual's efforts is morally repugnant.

That said, I fully agree with everything in their two posts. I don't think I did and certainly didn't intend to contradict anything expressed by them there.

I feel confident that both Dr. Ridpath and Bernstein would agree that the main focus and beneficiary of an individual's efforts should be oneself. If society benefits because I am pursuing my own rational self-interest (and I think it is a given that it does) all to the good.

However, the spirit of my answer to archimedes was intended. I was careful to read all of his posts before I answered him last.

[intellectualammo]

The idea that "mankind as a whole" should be the main focus of an individual's efforts is morally repugnant.

I might just be nitpicking, but it's still a bit imprecise for me.

To me, the idea that an individual lives their life for the sake of "mankind as a whole" is [morally repugnant]. An individuals main focus in their efforts is one thing, but to live ones life for anyone, any group, other than oneself, is another. Does that make sense? I think that that is what you are trying to get at, or am I wrong?

I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Doesn't say anything about focusing as such, just living.

Here's an example. I am a parent and X # of times the main focus of my efforts has been my daughter, but I am not living my life for her.

Edited October 17, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

To me, the idea that an individual lives their life for the sake of "mankind as a whole" is [morally repugnant]. An individuals main focus in their efforts is one thing, but to live ones life for anyone, any group, other than oneself, is another. Does that make sense? I think that that is what you are trying to get at, or am I wrong?

I don't want to belabor the point too much because I think we are in agreement.

Here is what archimedes said:

...we really need to stop beating our political heads against the stone of absurdity and set action to word and put a definitive end to all of the B.S. in this world so that we can more so focus on the progression of mankind as a whole without all of these needless, futile distractions that are only delaying the inevitable capitalist progression of society...all society.

After reading his posts in their entirety I think I understand what he is saying and I wanted to answer him using his own words, thus the use of the word "focus".

If you had made a similar statement and explained it the way you did, I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it.

If archimedes cares to elaborate and comes up with a reasonable explanation, demonstrating the use of Objectivist principles, I will gladly apologize for slighting him.

Doesn't say anything about focusing as such, just living.

To me focus is the training of your mind to a purpose and your main purpose should be your life, so I see nothing wrong with its usage in this case.

Here's an example. I am a parent and X # of times the main focus of my efforts has been my daughter, but I am not living my life for her.

I like the example of your daughter and as you acknowledge, even when the focus of your efforts are directed toward her you do this for selfish reasons; she is a tremendous value to you. The ultimate (maybe this is a better word) focus of your efforts is you.

[-archimedes-]

That's a myth borne of the hippies of the 60's.

Or so certain paranoid interests would prefer that the general public believe.... You see, nuclear weapons are the most destructive technology ever developed. From the day fission was discovered in 1938, the problem of controlling this technology has been of central importance to the human race. The world in which this discovery was made - convulsed by war, paranoia, and totalitarian cruelty - made the translation of theoretical possibility into actuality inevitable. The world has been fortunate in the extreme that their only role so far has been to close the worst chapter in the history of war, instead of opening a new one.

As someone who has studied all things nuclear in his youth...

Care to relay your credentials?

..., I can tell you that airburst use of nuclear weapons does not produce a large or lasting fallout (and groundbursts are only used to crack hardened underground targets, such as ICBM silos). If the above were true, we would all be poisoned from all the nuclear tests that were done.

Well, actually...nuclear explosions produce both immediate and delayed destructive effects. Immediate effects (blast, thermal radiation, prompt ionizing radiation) are produced and cause significant destruction within seconds or minutes of a nuclear detonation. The delayed effects (radioactive fallout and other possible environmental effects) inflict damage over an extended period ranging from hours to centuries, and can cause adverse effects in locations very distant from the site of the detonation.

The topic of nuclear weaponry/power generation is complex and technical: steeped in physics, mathematics, and esoteric engineering. Born in war, the subject has been highly classified from the beginning making it even more inaccessible. Yet this complexity and secrecy has not prevented their acquisition by any nation with an industrial infrastructure advanced enough to build them, and a matching desire. The obstacle to would-be members to the nuclear club has not been discovering how they work, but simply obtaining the tools and materials to make them...an obstacle that Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has found a means of circumventing by exploiting his countries oil reserves by promising rights of use to other developing countries in exchange for nuclear technology and materials, though the U.S. is doing what is possible at the moment to discourage such endeavors (remember the whole "cutting off of the snake's head" bit earlier?) US Senators Urge Sanctions Against Iran Over Nuclear Program ... to stem Iran's development of nuclear capabilities. ; US sanctions threat to foreign companies doing business with Iran nuclear agency... ; Iran’s Nuclear Development: UN Security Council to Discuss Additional Sanctions ... Council Adopts Sanctions Resolution Against Iran over ...Japan supports sanctions... .

Informed public input into these questions is important in a democracy. Yet the complexity of the topic and the deliberate manipulation of information through secrecy laws has left the public, even the technically trained public, largely ignorant and misinformed. A firm grasp of the basics, and ready access to information is essential to successfully influencing government policy.

So it is that I offer unto you for your education/advisement/wisdom the lengthy works of one Carey Sublette and others that contributed no doubt countless hours and drudgery to this very informative site (which I strongly encourage you to read for your own benefit and enlightenment): Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions: Section 5.0-Effects of Nuclear Explosions .

Edited October 25, 2007 by -archimedes-

[-archimedes-]

You said "inevitable capitalist progression of society...all society." I simply questioned your use of the word "inevitable". It is not inevitable, variables can prevent that "inevitability".

True, very true as "the best laid plans of mice and men, often go awry" (A passage in a poem penned by Robert Burns, entitled "To A Mouse", and later epitomized in the novel by John Steinbeck, "Of Mice and Men") but...it doesn't hurt one to hold out hope/proceed in one's life working to achieve such an outcome, now does it?!

[Inspector]

Or so certain paranoid interests would prefer that the general public believe....

What the hell are you talking about? I read your little link there and all of that was available to me in public library books when I was 12.

Well, actually...nuclear explosions produce both immediate and delayed destructive effects.

"Actually" nothing. Don't try to tell me what I already know about fallout. As I said, the long-term effects are in fact minimal. Most of the fallout becomes harmless in a matter of weeks. And there is no "global catastrophe" effect (provided, of course, that nobody nukes us back). Try reading your link.

[intellectualammo]

True, very true as "the best laid plans of mice and men, often go awry" (A passage in a poem penned by Robert Burns, entitled "To A Mouse", and later epitomized in the novel by John Steinbeck, "Of Mice and Men") but...it doesn't hurt one to hold out hope/proceed in one's life working to achieve such an outcome, now does it?!

Absolutely not. I'm quite an optimist myself and proceed that way in my life. I was merely pointing out your use of the word "inevitable".

Edited October 26, 2007 by intellectualammo

[-archimedes-]

The idea that "mankind as a whole" should be the focus of any individual's efforts is morally repugnant. Even politicians, who's job it is to consider the principles of a proper social system, must always be governed by and never violate the rights of the individuals who make up the society.

So, what say you then to the individuals who progressed the welfare of mankind as a whole with their individual invent[ions], discover[ies] or technological advance of Rand's passage:

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."...Hmm?

I find your apparent/self-defined rationale here somewhat confusing as I'm working to determine if this is merely an attempt on your behalf to be facetious, or if you actually are as self-centric as you've presented yourself to be, i.e., to the point that you've sequestered your world view to the constraints of your immediate environment/needs, rendering yourself so myopic in the de-evolutionary process as a result thereof to fail to realize/understand that all of "mankind as a whole" scientific, technological, economic, sociological, etc., etc., progress is, has, and will always be but the corollary byproduct of but a few individuals (who've, perhaps, devised ancillary inventions even themselves derived from/based on the evolutionary innovations of but one individual"?") "pursu[ing] their own personal interests" (Rand)?!?

There is nothing "inevitable" about issues open to human volition.

Granted...of mice and men, of mice and men*. (*see previous post)

How about Nazi Germany?

The people of Germany were largely unaware of Hitler's madness, which didn't happen to reveal itself until later in his term in office. Oh and Hitler was not extremely popular until after he came to power, he had less than a majority and united with his natural conservative allies and formed a coalition. His popularity grew when his foreign policy became successful, the depression began (as much of its own doing as anything else) to decline and opposing political opinion was suppressed.

So bad choice for a supportive reference on your part.

On the contrary, anyone who lives under a dictator and doesn't resist him, does in fact give their implied consent to his rule. How do we know that? Because they continue(s) to live there under his rule.

Hence the reason for the lack of resistance/their continued existence. I hope that you're able to realize the inherent contradictions of your contention on your own without my having to go into defining them any further.

Would the fact that a country had requested aid have any bearing on whether America should intervene or not?

Yes, of course...did you not read what I had posted? Though said "aid" should be limited to only those incidences involving anarchistic/terroristic extremists bent on overthrowing a current humanitarian rulership/those wherein our country's continued interests would be compromised.

Otherwise, I feel that it is in the best interests of all developing nations/peoples to do so on their own, free of outside influence that could potentially derail that peoples sociological evolutionary cycle and while, yes, I understand that, on the surface, this may seem a bit contradictory...but you'll need to have the capacity to dig a little deeper than the erroneously perceived superficiality of my statement.

archimedes:

I have read through most of your posts now and I must say that they are littered with just as many anti-Objectivist sentiments as expressed above. Apparently you understand that this Forum is dedicated to the study of Objectivism since you have quoted Ayn Rand. Do you think that you understand and are expressing agreement with Objectivist principles in your writings? If so, I must say: I disagree.

Perhaps you should, based on our exchange herein this thread, concentrate more so on addressing the topic at hand solely rather than dividing your attention in an attempt to define what you shallowly interpret as being my perspective on Objectivism to launch a personal attack...I'm sure that there are rules against such behavior on this forum, and anyway, you seem to have your hands full enough already.

[-archimedes-]

Well maybe not the sole focus but....something similar came up during one of the informal discussions we were fortunate to have with Dr. Ridpath. One person advocated shrugging, of buying somewhere a piece of land to start an Objectivist society, of leaving the irrational behind. Dr. Ridpath agrued against it, providing various arguments as to why it would not be a good idea (one of them included safety concerns - given current technology). But you maybe interested to know that he also said (although this was not the major reason) that although he would not sacrifice his life for it - if he could positively contribute to the future of mankind - to stir it in the right direction - he would - that that is a part of living a rational life. He said that shrugging by people of reason/ability would surely destroy mankind (no lifeline - no life). Interesting isn't it?

Alas...at least the women here seem to understand me (I extend to you my appreciation, Sophia ), while the men seem to be involved in a collective effort intent on either belittling my intellect, or callously imposing their own wills/self-centric rationale (a persuasion I've encountered on numerous occasions) on my (evolved"?") perspective of Objectivism/Capitalism.

You people need to learn to think beyond yourselves, overcome your self-imposed myopia and gain an overall world perspective, in order to actually obtain a true perspective with which to formulate a method of ideological application...go out (beyond yourselves), turn around, and look back in instead of sitting there on the inside of your little worlds looking out.

Simply put, you help yourself, the individual, by helping the people/many.

p.s. As an aside, a note of levity if you will allow me, a lot of what I see here is reminiscent of the mentality I've observed depicted by the fictional extraterrestrial race in the "Star Trek" universe, from the series "Deep Space Nine", known as the Ferengi (was studying examples of cultural/economic perspective diversities as part of the socio-economic studies).

[-archimedes-]

I must thank both Sophia and intellectualammo for pointing out the imprecision in my words. Let me amend my statement:

To:

The idea that "mankind as a whole" should be the main focus of an individual's efforts is morally repugnant.

That said, I fully agree with everything in their two posts. I don't think I did and certainly didn't intend to contradict anything expressed by them there.

I feel confident that both Dr. Ridpath and Bernstein would agree that the main focus and beneficiary of an individual's efforts should be oneself. If society benefits because I am pursuing my own rational self-interest (and I think it is a given that it does) all to the good.

However, the spirit of my answer to archimedes was intended. I was careful to read all of his posts before I answered him last.

No...you obviously still know not what you speak of. Perhaps it is because you "...read all of [my] posts..." from your perspective instead of my own/mine, as you should have? I mean, if it really was your intent to understand the rationale of my contentions/commentary.

I, again, encourage you to resist the primordial (or what have you) urge to attack me/my rationale/reasoning personally and, instead, "focus" on the subject matter at hand and on it alone.

Edited October 26, 2007 by -archimedes-

[-archimedes-]

What the hell are you talking about? I read your little link there and all of that was available to me in public library books when I was 12.

Yet still no posted credentials denoting your alleged proficiency of knowledge of "...all things nuclear...", whereas I've supplied links to credible sources on the subject matter at hand..., no offense, just lacking support for your, apparently baseless, contentions.

"Actually" nothing. Don't try to tell me what I already know about fallout. As I said, the long-term effects are in fact minimal. Most of the fallout becomes harmless in a matter of weeks. And there is no "global catastrophe" effect (provided, of course, that nobody nukes us back). Try reading your link.

Actually, the link read:

"5.2 Overview of Delayed Effects

5.2.1 Radioactive Contamination

The chief delayed effect is the creation of huge amounts of radioactive material with long lifetimes (half-lifes ranging from days to millennia). The primary source of these products is the debris left from fission reactions. A potentially significant secondary source is neutron capture by non-radioactive isotopes both within the bomb and in the outside environment.

When atoms fission they can split in some 40 different ways, producing a mix of about 80 different isotopes. These isotopes vary widely in stability, some our completely stable while others undergo radioactive decay with half-lifes of fractions of a second. The decaying isotopes may themselves form stable or unstable daughter isotopes. The mixture thus quickly becomes even more complex, some 300 different isotopes of 36 elements have been identified in fission products.

Short-lived isotopes release their decay energy rapidly, creating intense radiation fields that also decline quickly. Long-lived isotopes release energy over long periods of time, creating radiation that is much less intense but more persistent. Fission products thus initially have a very high level of radiation that declines quickly, but as the intensity of radiation drops, so does the rate of decline.

A useful rule-of-thumb is the "rule of sevens". This rule states that for every seven-fold increase in time following a fission detonation (starting at or after 1 hour), the radiation intensity decreases by a factor of 10. Thus after 7 hours, the residual fission radioactivity declines 90%, to one-tenth its level of 1 hour. After 7*7 hours (49 hours, approx. 2 days), the level drops again by 90%. After 7*2 days (2 weeks) it drops a further 90%; and so on for 14 weeks. The rule is accurate to 25% for the first two weeks, and is accurate to a factor of two for the first six months. After 6 months, the rate of decline becomes much more rapid. The rule of sevens corresponds to an approximate t^-1.2 scaling relationship.

These radioactive products are most hazardous when they settle to the ground as "fallout". The rate at which fallout settles depends very strongly on the altitude at which the explosion occurs, and to a lesser extent on the size of the explosion.

If the explosion is a true air-burst (the fireball does not touch the ground), when the vaporized radioactive products cool enough to condense and solidify, they will do so to form microscopic particles. These particles are mostly lifted high into the atmosphere by the rising fireball, although significant amounts are deposited in the lower atmosphere by mixing that occurs due to convective circulation within the fireball. The larger the explosion, the higher and faster the fallout is lofted, and the smaller the proportion that is deposited in the lower atmosphere. For explosions with yields of 100 kt or less, the fireball does not rise abve the troposphere where precipitation occurs. All of this fallout will thus be brought to the ground by weather processes within months at most (usually much faster). In the megaton range, the fireball rises so high that it enters the stratosphere. The stratosphere is dry, and no weather processes exist there to bring fallout down quickly. Small fallout particles will descend over a period of months or years. Such long-delayed fallout has lost most of its hazard by the time it comes down, and will be distributed on a global scale. As yields increase above 100 kt, progressively more and more of the total fallout is injected into the stratosphere.

An explosion closer to the ground (close enough for the fireball to touch) sucks large amounts of dirt into the fireball. The dirt usually does not vaporize, and if it does, there is so much of it that it forms large particles. The radioactive isotopes are deposited on soil particles, which can fall quickly to earth. Fallout is deposited over a time span of minutes to days, creating downwind contamination both nearby and thousands of kilometers away. The most intense radiation is created by nearby fallout, because it is more densely deposited, and because short-lived isotopes haven't decayed yet. Weather conditions can affect this considerably of course. In particular, rainfall can "rain out" fallout to create very intense localized concentrations. Both external exposure to penetrating radiation, and internal exposure (ingestion of radioactive material) pose serious health risks.

Explosions close to the ground that do not touch it can still generate substantial hazards immediately below the burst point by neutron-activation. Neutrons absorbed by the soil can generate considerable radiation for several hours.

The megaton class weapons that were developed in the US and USSR during the fifties and sixties have been largely retired, being replaced with much smaller yield warheads. The yield of a modern strategic warhead is, with few exceptions, now typically in the range of 200-750 kt. Recent work with sophisticated climate models has shown that this reduction in yield results in a much larger proportion of the fallout being deposited in the lower atmosphere, and a much faster and more intense deposition of fallout than had been assumed in studies made during the sixties and seventies. The reduction in aggregate strategic arsenal yield that occurred when high yield weapons were retired in favor of more numerous lower yield weapons has actually increased the fallout risk.

5.2.2 Effects on the Atmosphere and Climate

Although not as directly deadly as fallout, other environmental effects can be quite harmful.

5.2.2.1 Harm to the Ozone Layer

The high temperatures of the nuclear fireball, followed by rapid expansion and cooling, cause large amounts of nitrogen oxides to form from the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (very similar to what happens in combustion engines). Each megaton of yield will produce some 5000 tons of nitrogen oxides. The rising fireball of a high kiloton or megaton range warhead will carry these nitric oxides well up into the stratosphere, where they can reach the ozone layer. A series of large atmospheric explosions could significantly deplete the ozone layer. The high yield tests in the fifties and sixties probably did cause significant depletion, but the ozone measurements made at the time were too limited to pick up the expected changes out of natural variations.

5.2.2.2 Nuclear Winter

The famous TTAPS (Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, and Sagan) proposal regarding a potential "nuclear winter" is another possible occurrence. This effect is caused by the absorption of sunlight when large amounts of soot are injected into the atmosphere by the widespread burning of cities and petroleum stocks destroyed in a nuclear attack.

Similar events have been observed naturally when large volcanic eruptions have injected large amounts of dust into the atmosphere. The Tambora eruption of 1815 (the largest volcanic eruption in recent history) was followed by "the year without summer" in 1816, the coldest year in the last few centuries.

Soot is far more efficient in absorbing light than volcanic dust, and soot particles are small and hydrophobic and thus tend not to settle or wash out as easily.

Although the initial TTAPS study was met with significant skepticism and criticism, later and more sophisticated work by researchers around the world have confirmed it in all essential details. These studies predict that the amount of soot that would be produced by burning most of the major cities in the US and USSR would severly disrupt climate on a world-wide basis. The major effect would be a rapid and drastic reduction in global temperature, especially over land. All recent studies indicate that if large scale nucelar attack occur against urban or petrochemical targets, average temperature reductions of at least 10 degrees C would occur lasting many months. This level of cooling far exceeds any that has been observed in recorded history, and is comparable to that of a full scale ice age. In areas downwind from attack sites, the cooling can reach 35 degrees C. It is probable that no large scale temperature excursion of this size has occurred in 65 million years.

Smaller attacks would create reduced effects of course. But it has been pointed out that most of the world's food crops are subtropical plants that would have dramatic drops in productivity if an average temperature drop of even one degree were to occur for even a short time during the growing season. Since the world maintains a stored food supply equal to only a few months of consumption, a war during the Northern Hemisphere spring or summer could still cause deadly starvation around the globe from this effect alone even if it only produced a mild 'nuclear autumn'."

>>>http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html<<<

By the way, while the article made but passing reference ("...other environmental effects can be quite harmful...") to lasting environmental concerns, I can provide you with information from authoritative sources on the effects of, say, water contamination due to radioactive runoff, if you'd like to pursue this line of irrationality on your part further..."?"

Edited October 26, 2007 by -archimedes-