Should individuals have the right to build weapons of mass destruction?

[TiagoTiago]

I forgot to reply to the main topic, here is my reply:


Build? Yes.
Own? Yes.
Use? Depends.

[Jaime Frontero]

Now that nukes exist, I think everyone should get some.

Literally.


For example, I live in Brazil, that has no nukes. Brazil commonly bend over to nuke-bearing nations in ways that are crap to me.

If I had my own nuke, I could enforce Brazil to not do that, or secede.


In fact, I was looking the only small state of the world that is really interesting: Singapore, achieved that by having absurd military power.

mmmm.

firstly, you should look into brazil's Parallel Program of the 1970's and 80s.  you will find that your premise is not quite as accurate as you believe.  brazil may or may not have had nuclear weapons - accounts differ - but they entered the arena.

secondly, i will also point out that nuclear weapons only have value as a threat.  using them removes one's leverage.  and almost certainly one's self as well.  they are suicide weapons; excepting the case of their first (and anecdotally only) use by the US, against japan.

[FredericBastiat]

I know we like discussing the extreme cases, but I think we can understand this question a little better if we look at the basic concepts.

Like any weapon, the use of which can be deadly, it boils down to the condition or definition of imminent threat.

I define the definition of imminent threat (intent to do harm) as a function described by certain variables. There are mainly four determinants.

1) Proximity,
2) Capability,
3) Inertial reference frame and,
4) Vector (magnitude and direction).

All of the above variables need to be considered for imminent threat to become realized. For example: owning a nuclear bomb out in the middle of nowhere probably wouldn't be classified as a real threat. Now place the bomb in an ICBM and now were getting a little warmer. Point it in my direction, and now I'm a little nervous. Start the count down, light the fuse and set the target vector and now I feel like I need to retaliate or at least respond in kind.

Of course, nothing happens until it does. I just wouldn't want to be the guy to get it wrong and push the button and capriciously (perhaps viciously) kill thousands or millions of innocent civilians. Imminent threat is a bit like horseshoes and hand grenades, it's a bit iffy. It's all about intentions mainly, and even when that appears to be clear, you better be darn certain of yourself.

[BenRayfield]

secondly, i will also point out that nuclear weapons only have value as a threat.  using them removes one's leverage.  and almost certainly one's self as well.  they are suicide weapons; excepting the case of their first (and anecdotally only) use by the US, against japan.

What about the people who think they get a better afterlife if they kill the nonbelievers?

(To those people... You can't make somebody believe something by threatening them. You can only make them say it. While I don't believe in Satan, I see a strong similarity between Satan and such a god that would tell you to kill nonbelievers, so you're making things worse with your threats.)

[speeder]

Now that nukes exist, I think everyone should get some.

Literally.


For example, I live in Brazil, that has no nukes. Brazil commonly bend over to nuke-bearing nations in ways that are crap to me.

If I had my own nuke, I could enforce Brazil to not do that, or secede.


In fact, I was looking the only small state of the world that is really interesting: Singapore, achieved that by having absurd military power.

mmmm.

firstly, you should look into brazil's Parallel Program of the 1970's and 80s.  you will find that your premise is not quite as accurate as you believe.  brazil may or may not have had nuclear weapons - accounts differ - but they entered the arena.

secondly, i will also point out that nuclear weapons only have value as a threat.  using them removes one's leverage.  and almost certainly one's self as well.  they are suicide weapons; excepting the case of their first (and anecdotally only) use by the US, against japan.

Brazil have the tech, no actual nukes.

Like the other guy said, if they are not really ready, they are not that threatening.

[myrkul]

Brazil have the tech, no actual nukes.

Like the other guy said, if they are not really ready, they are not that threatening.

Blueprints do not a bomb make, eh?

[MatthewLM]

If someone is found to be building a dangerous bomb, sure pre-emptive defence may be needed.

[myrkul]

If someone is found to be building a dangerous bomb, sure pre-emptive defence may be needed.

There are legitimate uses for a nuke, you know.

[MatthewLM]

Alright then. Extremist people can all the nukes they want? Bad idea. Dangerous.

In the rare case a nuke is useful, people will want to be ensured it is being used safely.

[myrkul]

Alright then. Extremist people can all the nukes they want? Bad idea. Dangerous.

In the rare case a nuke is useful, people will want to be ensured it is being used safely.

I have yet to see a single convincing argument that the right people to do that are the coercive monopolies.

[MatthewLM]

I know. And we've seen governments abuse nuclear technology in the past.

But no way can you sit back while you watch people make a nuke without reassurances at the least.

[myrkul]

I know. And we've seen governments abuse nuclear technology in the past.

But no way can you sit back while you watch people make a nuke without reassurances at the least.

Once again, I find myself turning to excerpting "Alongside Night":

“Lor,” said Elliot as they exited to the promenade, “after
this place I’d believe you if you told me someone was here
hawking nukes.”
Someone was.
The display mock-up had a sign underneath labeling it: “100
KILOTON ATOMIC FISSION DEVICE.”
The salesman in Lowell-Pierre Engineering was telling
them, “...but of course much smaller than the megaton capa-
bilities of the hydrogen fusion devices.”
“You provide the plutonium?” Elliot asked him.
“No, of course not,” said the salesman. “You’d have to find
your own source. But even if you did, you’d have to accept one
of our supervisors to ensure that the device would be used
only for excavation or drilling, before we would sell you one.
We don’t hand over nuclear weapons to fools who want to blow
up the world.”
“But you’ve sold these things?” asked Lorimer. “Really?”
“Of course,” said the salesman. “Do you think we’re in busi-
ness for our health?”

[RandyFolds]

There are legitimate uses for almost everything, but as I see it the important question is: Does x benefit society overall compared to the lack of x (including the means of enforcing the lack of x)? (and the same question for all ways to organize and influence or control x) If not, then we shouldn't have x until that changes.

The ends do not justify the means; The ends plus the side-effects justify the means.

I tend to take the opposite view, that the means should justify the ends. I'd also like to point out that often, the means determines the ends.

(But yes, a GPU farm in space would have AWESOME cooling, provided it was kept in the shade)

How? It could only radiate away heat, which isn't nearly as good as the cooling options we have on Earth.

Radiation sucks when the difference is a few degrees C. It's fricking amazing when the difference is a few hundred. (Space is really really cold)

Radiant cooling doesn't work so well in a vacuum...what exactly is that heat energy passing to?

[myrkul]

There are legitimate uses for almost everything, but as I see it the important question is: Does x benefit society overall compared to the lack of x (including the means of enforcing the lack of x)? (and the same question for all ways to organize and influence or control x) If not, then we shouldn't have x until that changes.

The ends do not justify the means; The ends plus the side-effects justify the means.

I tend to take the opposite view, that the means should justify the ends. I'd also like to point out that often, the means determines the ends.

(But yes, a GPU farm in space would have AWESOME cooling, provided it was kept in the shade)

How? It could only radiate away heat, which isn't nearly as good as the cooling options we have on Earth.

Radiation sucks when the difference is a few degrees C. It's fricking amazing when the difference is a few hundred. (Space is really really cold)

Radiant cooling doesn't work so well in a vacuum...what exactly is that heat energy passing to?

Perfect vacuums do not exist in nature.

Edit: Processors in space are cooled using a Heat pipe

Edit2: But that is apparently to keep the temperature relatively constant: "As satellites orbit, one side is exposed to the direct radiation of the sun while the opposite side is completely dark and exposed to the deep cold of outer space. This causes severe discrepancies in the temperature (and thus reliability and accuracy) of the transponders."

Edit3 and what I should have said all along: It's not transferring to anything. it's radiating. Thus the term.

[RandyFolds]

There are legitimate uses for almost everything, but as I see it the important question is: Does x benefit society overall compared to the lack of x (including the means of enforcing the lack of x)? (and the same question for all ways to organize and influence or control x) If not, then we shouldn't have x until that changes.

The ends do not justify the means; The ends plus the side-effects justify the means.

I tend to take the opposite view, that the means should justify the ends. I'd also like to point out that often, the means determines the ends.

(But yes, a GPU farm in space would have AWESOME cooling, provided it was kept in the shade)

How? It could only radiate away heat, which isn't nearly as good as the cooling options we have on Earth.

Radiation sucks when the difference is a few degrees C. It's fricking amazing when the difference is a few hundred. (Space is really really cold)

Radiant cooling doesn't work so well in a vacuum...what exactly is that heat energy passing to?

Perfect vacuums do not exist in nature.

Edit: Processors in space are cooled using a Heat pipe

Edit2: But that is apparently to keep the temperature relatively constant: "As satellites orbit, one side is exposed to the direct radiation of the sun while the opposite side is completely dark and exposed to the deep cold of outer space. This causes severe discrepancies in the temperature (and thus reliability and accuracy) of the transponders."

Edit3 and what I should have said all along: It's not transferring to anything. it's radiating. Thus the term.

You need to wikipedia some thermodynamics. Heat energy cannot be dissipated into nothing. It requires matter to absorb the energy. In the relative vacuum of space, their is not enough matter for radiant cooling in conventional terms to be efficient. I just asked my physicist ladyfriend, and she said my theory sounds correct. Good enough for me to stand behind it...she knows a hell of a low more about thermodynamics than I do.

[myrkul]

Edit2: But that is apparently to keep the temperature relatively constant: "As satellites orbit, one side is exposed to the direct radiation of the sun while the opposite side is completely dark and exposed to the deep cold of outer space. This causes severe discrepancies in the temperature (and thus reliability and accuracy) of the transponders."

Edit3 and what I should have said all along: It's not transferring to anything. it's radiating. Thus the term.

You need to wikipedia some thermodynamics. Heat energy cannot be dissipated into nothing. It requires matter to absorb the energy. In the relative vacuum of space, their is not enough matter for radiant cooling in conventional terms to be efficient. I just asked my physicist ladyfriend, and she said my theory sounds correct. Good enough for me to stand behind it...she knows a hell of a low more about thermodynamics than I do.
[/quote]

Right then. Explain the wikipedia quote, then. But do it in another thread, lest this one get too far off track.

[RandyFolds]

Edit2: But that is apparently to keep the temperature relatively constant: "As satellites orbit, one side is exposed to the direct radiation of the sun while the opposite side is completely dark and exposed to the deep cold of outer space. This causes severe discrepancies in the temperature (and thus reliability and accuracy) of the transponders."

Edit3 and what I should have said all along: It's not transferring to anything. it's radiating. Thus the term.

You need to wikipedia some thermodynamics. Heat energy cannot be dissipated into nothing. It requires matter to absorb the energy. In the relative vacuum of space, their is not enough matter for radiant cooling in conventional terms to be efficient. I just asked my physicist ladyfriend, and she said my theory sounds correct. Good enough for me to stand behind it...she knows a hell of a low more about thermodynamics than I do.

Right then. Explain the wikipedia quote, then. But do it in another thread, lest this one get too far off track.
[/quote]

This thread is absolutely retarded.

The wikipedia quote says that the side exposed to the sun heats up...even though space is extremely cold. That is because there is no matter to absorb the 'radiant' heat. The heat pipe that you linked actively (requiring power input) equalizes the temperature of the device. In a true vacuum, an object would never cool down...or rather it would, but very slowly through the gradual process of dissipation through brownian motion and other miniscule forces at work.

[myrkul]

This thread is absolutely retarded.

Very well. Any mod that wishes, can and should split this thread off here:

Radiant cooling doesn't work so well in a vacuum...what exactly is that heat energy passing to?

In the meantime:
Wikipedia: Radiation

In physics, radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energy or waves travel through a medium or space.
...

Infrared (IR) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 0.7 and 300 micrometres, which equates to a frequency range between approximately 1 and 430 THz.

Thank you, come again.

[MatthewLM]

Why do people give off inferred radiation? Inferred cameras? When we get hot, isn't some of the heat transferred into radiation?

This is common sense to me since I know about thermal imaging cameras but please explain in a scientific way someone.

[patvarilly]

Perfect vacuums do not exist in nature.

Edit: Processors in space are cooled using a Heat pipe

Edit2: But that is apparently to keep the temperature relatively constant: "As satellites orbit, one side is exposed to the direct radiation of the sun while the opposite side is completely dark and exposed to the deep cold of outer space. This causes severe discrepancies in the temperature (and thus reliability and accuracy) of the transponders."

Edit3 and what I should have said all along: It's not transferring to anything. it's radiating. Thus the term.

You need to wikipedia some thermodynamics. Heat energy cannot be dissipated into nothing. It requires matter to absorb the energy. In the relative vacuum of space, their is not enough matter for radiant cooling in conventional terms to be efficient. I just asked my physicist ladyfriend, and she said my theory sounds correct. Good enough for me to stand behind it...she knows a hell of a low more about thermodynamics than I do.

Myrkul is almost never right about anything, so I hate to agree with him, but surprisingly, he's right this time.  I'm a physicist by training.  Radiation can be emitted by an object in a vacuum without a problem (it's how the Sun emits heat that reaches us, even though the intervening space is almost perfectly a vacuum).  Further, it's the dominant way that hot objects lose heat, since the heat emitted via radiation scales as (temperature)^4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law).  You don't notice it while sitting in your room because all the heat you're losing through radiation is being replaced by all the other objects in the room radiating back at you; in space, you'd notice it quickly.