[Snail]

If they only needed to detonate a nuclear bomb, and not kill anyone, why didn't they just invite Hirohito to some uninhabited island and drop a bomb there?

[iamzack]

I voted for everything!

[Bobboau]

If they only needed to detonate a nuclear bomb, and not kill anyone, why didn't they just invite Hirohito to some uninhabited island and drop a bomb there?

cause we had two of them at the time, a third was on the way. besides that's a militarily stupid move, you don't let the enimy know what cards you have.

I don't care what the rationalization is, you don't nuke cities full of civilians. Ever. For no reason.

I hope you are leading the nation we next go to war with, it'll be a really easy victory for us.

[Snail]

Did someone change the poll results? lolwtf

[Redstreblo]

That's it!

*resets poll*

[Snail]

Aww but nukes are sexy and I want to hump them!

[Klaustrophobia]

I can't ever say that using a nuke is a good thing, but it certainly isn't the most evil thing ever done.  the existence, if not the use of, nuclear weapons is a very good thing.  MAD might be scary as **** (or was back in the cold war that I wasn't alive during), but it works.  I wish there was a way to know how many wars didn't happen and how many people didn't die because of MAD. 

[Snail]

How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing?

I don gets

[Redstreblo]

How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing?

I don gets

second 

[General Battuta]

How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing?

I don gets

second 

By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.

If there's a risk of a fight leading to bombpocalypse, you don't start a fight.

[Redstreblo]

How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing?

I don gets

second  

By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.

If there's a risk of a fight leading to bombpocalypse, you don't start a fight.

I assume then that you voted for option one where nukes are a deterrent to war?

[Snail]

By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.

Wait, there was a vast dropoff in armed conflict after WW2?


Cool...

[watsisname]

How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing?

I don gets

We're in constant danger of utter destruction with or without the existence of nukes.  
Don't panic!  

Edit:  Now that I think about it, I hope that we do end up deflecting a dangerous asteroid via nukes, because then nukes would be praised for being the awesome saviors of humanity. xD

Edit2:  Dammit Kosh!  Beat me to it.

[Kosh]

Recently come across this

According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.

Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.

As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.

[General Battuta]

How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing?

I don gets

second 

By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.

If there's a risk of a fight leading to bombpocalypse, you don't start a fight.

I assume then that you voted for option one where nukes are a deturrent to war?

Why would you make an assumption like that? Did you miss the clause by some lines of thought?

How do you have any idea that what I said represented my opinion?

Recently come across this

According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.

Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.

As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.

That's not news, we've known that for ages. Didn't you see that godawful Bay movie Armageddon?

[Redstreblo]

Recently come across this

According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.

Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.

As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.

so... nukes aren't the cause for our doom, instead they are the key to our survival? 

[Redstreblo]

How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing?

I don gets

second 

By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.

If there's a risk of a fight leading to bombpocalypse, you don't start a fight.

I assume then that you voted for option one where nukes are a deturrent to war?

Why would you make an assumption like that? Did you miss the clause by some lines of thought?

How do you have any idea that what I said represented my opinion?

actually yes I did miss that clause. whoops.

[Snail]

Recently come across this

According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.

Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.

As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.

so... nukes aren't the cause for our doom, instead they are the key to our survival? 

I doubt that very much.

[headdie]

Recently come across this

According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.

Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.

As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.

so... nukes aren't the cause for our doom, instead they are the key to our survival?  

where's Bruce Willis where you need him

[Redstreblo]

Recently come across this

According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.

Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.

As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.

so... nukes aren't the cause for our doom, instead they are the key to our survival? 

where's Bruce Willis where you need him

More like harrison ford and a lead refrigerator!