Why do you think the chances of the new owner disarming the nuke to be zero? That's the first fallacy of your silly argument.

The second fallacy: Let's say, that it's not zero, but one in one million, for the sake of argument. Why would each successive owner instead not choose to either have nearly impregnable security guarding the nuke, or more likely, simply not advertise it's existence, thus ensuring no further exchange?

The third fallacy: you assume the nuke is never detonated as it changes hands. But consider if it does. In that case, the total death toll is all that died in your scenario plus the toll from its detonation.

I'll leave you to ponder the second and third fallacies on your own. Let's revisit the first fallacy. You seem to be indicating that the chance of disarmament is zero upon each exchange of ownership. Assuming that to have a grain of truth to it, then it follows that increasing law enforcement would increase the chance of disarmament from zero to some higher number, as that is generally the case when law enforcement confiscates a gun from a criminal who is waving it about pointing it at people. Now, I can hear it coming: you're going to say that increasing law enforcement engaging in the act of confiscation will increase the chance of it detonating as the owner strives to protect his ownership of the weapon. However, if we examine the behavior of criminals, (cartels, etc.), we can see that owners of weapons generally don't discriminate between law enforcement or other criminals when they are being subdued - they will threaten use of the weapon in either case. Therefore, it stands to reason that the best course of action is to limit the proliferation of such weapons in the first place.

I agree with most of this statement. I contend that our best course of action at this point is through education and awareness, so that policy (or whatever governmental or societal forces are available) factors in all the ramifications of mankind's footprint, and prevents observations made thus far from being downplayed or squashed.

That which I disagree with is the notion that little can be done. That simply isn't true.

I appreciate your input when it isn't devoid of thoughtful content. This isn't one of those times. The offending statement:


To narrow it down further, the offending component of the above statement:


Are you familiar with deforestation and the effects it has? Are you familiar with the extent of deforestation that has occurred on this planet in the past several hundred years? Are you familiar with the megafauna that existed in New Zealand, Australia, the South Pacific Islands, North America and Europe prior to man's arrival? Are you familiar with the value of biodiversity, or is that just a term you hear thrown around usually coincident with conservation? Are you someone who likes to mostly argue monetary policy, yet fancies himself knowledgeable enough to address the issues of biodiversity?

I'm not sure I proposed a specific and singular course of action, especially one that involves kicking down doors. Mostly, I'm presenting thought provoking information, partially in the form of questions, to get you thinking. The subject matter of some of those questions related to the why of a discrepancy between western slope Sierra Nevada amphibian extinctions vs. eastern slope Sierra Nevada extinctions, the Sumatran Rhino and how unregulated capitalism accelerates extinction, wolves and water quality, the informational content in a world full of biodiversity vs. a world stripped of biodiversity, edge effects and ecosystem fragmentation, how the economy has changed what the limiting factors are in the global fish haul, and the overkill hypothesis. I'm more than willing to discuss any of those.

I pretty much am in complete agreement with what you're saying. However, I recently made a rather lengthy reply to one of your posts, and perhaps it was because I misunderstood. Have you read it? Here is the post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg530155#msg530155

No. It's much worse. Possession of a nuke is akin to constantly pointing a million guns at millions of people simultaneously. Desire to own a nuke is akin to desiring to point a million guns simultaneously at a million people perpetually. Except you must also take note that in the case of the nuke, you need only pull one trigger, as opposed to pulling a million triggers.

Actually, it's even worse. It's akin to putting one bomb each in 100,000 homes, all controlled via a remote control trigger. Actually, it's even worse, due to radioactive fallout. To think that there are people here implying that pointing a gun at someone is worse. And to think that these people are also arguing that a knife in your kitchen drawer is similar.

If you don't understand that, then you you have the logical facilities of a four year old.

I'm sure I recommended Edward O. Wilson's book to you. It's funny you say research. Edward O. Wilson supports, as I do, the preservation of species as best as we are able, because of all the wonderful things we have yet to learn from each and every one of those species - stuff like biological mechanisms, community behavior, medicinal breakthroughs, etc. There are millions of species out there worth learning from in our future, if we'd make an effort to save them. The one organism that Edward O. Wilson said that he saw no reason to preserve was small pox.

Funny how your political stance is pretty much diametrically opposite his. Do you think you're wiser than he is?

Funny thing is, he justifies possession of a nuke in a shed because we all have knives in our kitchen drawers. Then he goes on to say that you would sign a contract if you wanted to keep a nuke.

So does that mean we all sign a contract to keep a knife in our kitchen drawer? I suspect not - which clearly shows that he is aware that their is a difference between the two - which renders his comparison null.

I'd rather fall off a twenty foot cliff than a thousand foot cliff. But you don't see me actively seeking out either scenario, do you?

Ummm, probably because of the infrastructure in place, the history behind the motivation, etc. I'm not advocating nukes, here. But given a choice, I'd rather see nukes in the hands of the US government than some rogue individual who lives in his parents' basement.

I really want an answer to this. That means you, Fred.

Should these guys be regulated? Or are they just claiming property and calling it their own?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxtxs7itqLjKy6P_bIksR4x39_ng

It seems that laws are either coercive or restrictive. You must go do this, or you must not do that. I realize it's likely you separate them in other ways. What are the certain types of laws that you oppose?

Talk about taking the slippery slope argument and abusing it. I mean, the slippery slope argument is a good argument, but this is just abuse of it.

People by and large would never ultimately be convinced of such insanity, so it's kind of pointless to argue with him. I mean, it would be like wasting your time and energy arguing with someone who says everyone has a right to hijack airliners and fly them into densely populated areas.

Oh wait. That's basically what he's arguing for. Could you imagine him presenting his ideas at a town hall meeting, or to Congress, or just about any group of people?

Like I've stated several times in the past, I wish there were more people in this forum who wanted to engage in discussing real stuff that would make a difference.

It's actually very sick and disgusting. I accused him of being "overly principled" and he couldn't understand how being overly principled is not necessarily a good thing.

Stupid. Signs the contract with whom? What if he signs it but then does nefarious things anyway? Who enforces what the contract says?


Stupid. A knife in your drawer isn't a threat because it's in your drawer. A bomb in your shed doesn't get the "isn't a threat" status because it's in your shed.

It doesn't work like that. How about some storytelling? I'll go first.

Once there was small village on the alpine tundra. Everyone lived in huts made from the hides of animals. Freddo was a young man coming of age, and although truculent at times, was generally a well liked lad. Imango was another young man of the tribe, and he discovered the property of leverage one day, and soon learned how to apply it to pulley systems, thus enabling any fellow to be able to hoist heavy weights high overhead. One day, Freddo was in a particularly cantankerous mood, and most everyone avoided him, except for his friend Bitkish. Feeling industrious, they built a sort of gantry made from tree limbs over the village's tribal tent. Then, using a pulley system and some frayed ropes, they hoisted the heaviest boulder they could find (rolled down from the hill above), until it hung very high above the tribal tent.

Ayoo, the tribal leader, cast his eyes upon the threatening and rickety structure and asked, "What is this?" Freddo, so proud of his accomplishment, said he devised it as protection from the shaman leaders, who demand that he spend each day either hunting or tilling the land. Ayoo, wise in his ways, called for Freddo to lower the boulder immediately. Freddo, getting ever more pugnacious, said he would do no such thing, indicating that there was no reason to, as nobody was injured, and unless someone was injured, why should there be any reason to lower the boulder? Bitkish, hunkered down behind some animal hides hung out to cure, snickered as he listened in.

Just as Ayoo was turning to discover who was skulking behind the animal skins, the frayed rope broke, and the heavy boulder crashed into the tribal tent, then tumbled down the slope, rolling onto Bitkish. Freddo shrieked, not believing what he was witnessing. Ayoo ran into the remains of the tribal tent, and discovered two injured shamans, one the blood father of Freddo, although Freddo did not know this, as he was raised by Thescripto.

Ayoo banished Freddo from the land, sending him on his way with nothing but all his worldly possessions, which were a spear, a leather skin to hold water, and the animal furs he wore. All the while, a hawk, perched upon the highest point of the gantry looked on, seemingly wise and all knowing.

More people will die if immature kids who fancy themselves as boy racers are allowed to drive 100 miles per hour down the freeway weaving in and out of traffic. To which you would reply: "Damn the consequences, it's wrong to restrict the rights of someone who wants to drive down the freeway at 100 miles per hour weaving in and out of traffic."

And my reply to that is: "You're too immature to be much of a judge of the consequences, and thus lack the wisdom to deeply discuss the finer details of how society should address such details."

I would be happy to discuss solutions to real problems. Society's (or a government's) decision to prevent individuals from owning nuclear arms is not a problem. Therefore, it really isn't worth discussing.

Like I said, if you want to discuss pressing problems, I'd be more than happy to discuss them.