Iran

[Jack]

Then you've been having a trust based conversation with yourself because haven't seen anyone say Iran shouldn't have nuclear arms because they can't be trusted not to start a nuclear war, nor anyone say existing nuclear states should have them because they can be trusted otherwise. Without that context, these statements appear to not only advocate Iran as a new nuclear state, but any non-nuclear country with a sworn nuclear enemy as needing nuclear arms as leverage, and promoting some right for them to have them. Understood this topic to be a discussion based on the why of the matter, and the why of which states can/cannot have nuclear arms has nothing to do with fairness, general public trust in other countries, or nuclear acts which predate the NPT. We're not having the same conversation.

[ZEGH8578]

The "why" isn't really a debate, neither is "why not", like you say, one just have to check what they signed last, case closed.

But it's more intellectually stimulating to look at the philosophical aspects of it, than the yes-or-no aspects, where existing documents easily determine the "correct answer"

[Jack]

Tend to not find intellectual stimulation in philosophical discussion, and find them to be more unrealistic impractical hypothetical conversations based in emotion. Rarely have any interest in waxing philosophical, as their are no correct answers in philosophy and the only logical philosophical stance is one of existential nihilism, so it's impossible for me to have any sense of appreciation for my own philosophical stance. Everyone is going to die anyway, nothing actually matters, and nuclear arms are no exception to that. There you go.

[Arya Quinn]

Any country that has nuclear weapons has the "doomsday button" and thus the power to end the world as we know it with a simple press of a button.

No one should have that kind of power. I think the question we should be asking isn't "should Iran be allowed nuclear weapons" and instead "should anyone have nuclear weapons?"

[Gopher Gary]

I'd like to see some political cartoons from other countries on this topic. Anyone have any? 

What? Nothing? The UK lifting it's own individual sanctions from Iran is generating nary a political cartoon?  I don't care what direction they're slanted. Someone please gimme. 

[ZEGH8578]

Any country that has nuclear weapons has the "doomsday button" and thus the power to end the world as we know it with a simple press of a button.

No one should have that kind of power. I think the question we should be asking isn't "should Iran be allowed nuclear weapons" and instead "should anyone have nuclear weapons?"

I think that too is a bit of a reach, based on quick assumption (philosophical aspect alert!  ) let's say Iran blasts the hell out of Israel, why should that cause some kind of cascade resulting in ending the world (as we know it), well, okay, it would "end the world with israel in it" or "end the world with most of iran", but not thaaat much else.

Even an all-out between USA and China would affect mostly only USA and China, since China don't have any allies, and China in return have about 200 warheads, not exactly enough to litter the world in glowing mushrooms.
These were American targets btw, in Norway In-case-we-flip targets
(and when I say "affect" I mean there is a big difference between radioactive rainfall, and obliterated capitals)

A more daunting confrontation would of course be Russia vs NATO, here we have the possibility to really shower the place in nukes, well - limited mostly to western world + russia, and again - limited only to Russia, since Russia is the only "antagonist" nuclear power with the capacity to cause significant damage globally

So
Let's sing the relax-song together, everyone, hand in hand!
Followed by the aw-fuck-it-More-nukes!-song afterwards!

[ZEGH8578]

CIA I think, or someone like that, made a very interesting calculation of a nuclear exchange, like an "all out" with predictions and calculations. It was quite interesting

The anticipated destruction is both overwhelming - and overcomable at the same time, humanity is strong like that. The initial exchange would probably cause some hundred million deaths world wide, in the relevant metropolitan areas mostly, followed by some hundreds of millions more in the aftermath. A population of for example 7 billion could be dented down to 6-6,5, for then to grow more slowly for a period of time

I'm not making much of a point here, other than to say - nuclear war isn't going to exterminate mankind. No other point, not saying it's a walk in the park or anything, but humanity is very strong. Even India said it about Pakistan's arsenal of about 200, that India can take it. India doubted Pakistan could take the returning 200 warheads, which is also true - some regions would be markantly more devastated than others if all the missiles flew

In the "War Atlas" I used to flip through as a kid, there was a hypothetical nuke-target map, based on the cold war, and Trondheim had 2 dots on it! TWO! Norway had 20-some

[Al Swearegen]

I think you are incorrect.
The target areas would have catastrophic loss of life, then the surrounding areas with the blast. Then of course the fallout and what goes up into the atmosphere, choking out sunlight in a radioactive haze that would affect the air, water, vegetation and animals.

The effect of one nuclear warhead would be bad. Talking worst case? The Earth wouldn't explode or anything but humanity would be decimated.

[ZEGH8578]

Litterally decimated if so, 700 million dead out of 7 billion total, which is pretty much the calculation which I base my observations on.

So, yeah, I'm just countering the idea that a nuclear exchange would be the end of humanity - or any other "apocalyptic" idea that is easily associated with a nuclear war (like, the earth would indeed not explode), not that this idea has been perpetuated on this forum any. Just throwing it out there.

But sure, 700 million dead is WW2 times 15. We would never have seen anything like it.

[Jack]

Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. ~Isaiah 13:9

[ZEGH8578]

Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. ~Isaiah 13:9

Everything is relative, a nuclear bomb is the biggest bomb we humans can make - but the Lord might much more likely come as a massive Earth-not-give-a-shit-ing meteor, just ka-plaf into the surface, and - with enough mass - just vibrate all surface material to gas in an instant. I'm afraid this approach wouldn't discriminate much between sinner/non-sinner though :I
But I like the possibility, that it exists out there. It's very magnificent!

[odeon]

Lots of parking space made available.

[Jack]

Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. ~Isaiah 13:9

Everything is relative, a nuclear bomb is the biggest bomb we humans can make - but the Lord might much more likely come as a massive Earth-not-give-a-shit-ing meteor, just ka-plaf into the surface, and - with enough mass - just vibrate all surface material to gas in an instant. I'm afraid this approach wouldn't discriminate much between sinner/non-sinner though :I
But I like the possibility, that it exists out there. It's very magnificent!

According to the bible everyone is a sinner, though when quoting the bible one can always assume me to be facetious. Was being philosophical.

[benjimanbreeg]

Israel has them, that's what we really need to worry about.  Our leaders pander to them and are terrified of them, it's pathetic, but not hard to understand why. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

[Jack]

Welcome back.