Research.

I'm fine with eradicating the remaining samples of smallpox as long as its your sample you want to destroy. I for one would incinerate my sample of smallpox (if I had any) as I think owning such things serves little or any purpose of mine, at the moment.

I'm not a chemist or biologist, so I have no need of such things; and knowing that owning such things could bring accidental harm to others, I wouldn't want to be responsible for that possibility. But that's just me. Other people have their own reasoning. To each his own.

At the height of the "cold war" Russia had as many as 16,000. The United States had more than that. This doesn't include the French or Israelis. So thousands being a very rounded value, isn't too far off. Why are we so concerned about the numbers again?

We, meaning the whole world.

And we have thousands of them... What is the point of all of this? Your precious London is still standing.

I'll concede on the veracity of the number. I personally don't think the number is relevant to our argument. So while I might be numerically inaccurate, it does not follow that my entire premise is wrong. But whatever, the number is of little concern to me. I don't want to google it; and if you want to terminate our discussion because of it, I'm fine with that too.

You'd also have to assume all of those suicidal individuals must have the wherewithal to purchase one, much less be even given one, despite having loads of money to get it. In addition, they'd have to know how to arm it and then use it. Sounds like the probability is getting smaller if not miniscule.

I'm sure if I were a nuke producer, I'd certainly want to vet the buyer long before I'd even remotely consider selling one to him. You're a scare mongerer.

I don't have personal verifiable proof. Some research labs had samples up until 2002. There may not be any now. It has been proved that the virus could be synthesized from cow pox. Given enough technology, I'm sure it's possible to recreate it. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, however.

As far as I can tell, I already do. Not everybody has a nuke, but then not everybody has a gun either. I'm unconvinced by your scare tactics. Yes, we could all get blown to heck tomorrow. And the sun could get snuffed out and turn into a black hole and suck us all in. I hate all nuclear stuff, too damn dangerous (sarcasm).

Right... so we should just start killing people we think might remotely threaten us, just in case. Stalin was one such character. I don't even think some of his family were able to avoid his butchery. Look it up. It was called the 'Great Purge'.

There are a lot of people you've just asked to take a position in front of your firing squad. Most of your politicians, nuclear engineers, chemical engineers, and explosives experts, etc. are about to get a bullet to the head, it seems. Sounds awful threatening.

And yet there are many a sample of smallpox owned by various individuals all over the world. I'm not dead yet. I don't feel particularly threatened either. Your possession argument is getting thinner and thinner by the minute.

I like the comment about pointing a loaded gun while cleaning the trigger. That's an interesting theory. The real question is can you bridge the gap between intent to do harm and ignorant accidental potential harm?

Of course, it would seem reasonably actionable, assuming your bounty request was justified, to incinerate anybody's specimen regardless if a government facility owned it or I owned it. If you feel threatened, you're suggesting it doesn't really matter who has possession. I'm trying to take a fair, equitable and lawful stance regarding your concerns. Is that correct?

The infrastructure didn't exist until it did, of course; same as the government, motivation and the history behind all of it. What's to say in a "Libertopia" a similar scenario or provision couldn't come about?

You could probably possess the smallpox strain in a containment vessel and that would be fine. That's already being done anyway. If however you were infected with smallpox, and you wanted to physically interact with others, that could be construed as sufficiently life-threatening, and could be defended against. Quarantining would be apropos.

Sorry about not providing attribution. I had the quote but not the reference to the author. Thanks.

My ideology is not to deny individuals their right to life or security in their property. Au contraire, I consider any suicidal person whose intent it is to take out innocents, as wrong and unjustified. I don't appreciate your connotation that I don't respect property and life. You make absurd conclusions, false dichotomies, logical fallacies, and you abound in ad hominem and straw man arguments. It doesn't help your cause/ideology at all.

If a person is suicidal and intends to use a nuclear bomb and take everybody with him, that's more than sufficient threat; enough for me to attempt to stop him, regardless of how he acquired said nuke.

Besides, how is it that if any person who of sound mind (intent) and body, and wanted to possess a nuke, any different than anybody else you have chosen to possess/regulate said nuke? Why are your people any better at tending to a nuke than he is?

You elevate yourself or your government upon a very high pedestal, and yet your government is still comprised of people who have similar characteristics as any other man, except in your case, they have privilege via force and everybody else does not. Privilege does not make a better man; it merely gives him a title no one else can claim.

The title of 'nuke protector/destroyer' changes nothing inherent in the person.

...The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

I'd rather slip in the direction of Libertarianism with much of it's uncertainty, than slip in the direction of Tyranny with a known outcome we've seen time and time again.

So I'm curious what the ratio would be for you. Do you sacrifice 1 man for every 10, 1:100, 1:1000... etc?