The Insanity of Nuclear Weapons
tags:
Stumble ThisBen Cohen, Co-Founder of Ben & Jerry's, demonstrates the U.S. nuclear arsenal using bb's.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
Ben,Cohen,Nuclear,Weapons,Arsenal,War,Peace,Government The Insanity of Nuclear Weapons
Comments  playlists with this video Tips on Saving the World by Fedquip
• Ideas for a better world by notarobot
• cold war by calvados
who voted for this video notarobot
- LuketheDrifter
- siftbot
x52 - evil_disco_man
- MrFisk
- EndAll
- Stormsinger
- UsesProzac
- nibiyabi
- billpayer
- zeoverlord
- jdbates
- joedirt
- lordneptune
- schmawy
- justathinker
- wax66
- enoch
- RedSky
- MrConrads
- rougy
- dana980
- dingens
The Insanity Of Nuclear Weapons Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
At the same time, (from what I understand) it would be difficult and expensive to disarm all those weapons. I, for one, see nuclear bombs as something of the past. Short of a global war of attrition, I can't imagine any country ever using another warhead because of the global backlash that would exist.
But these weapons will still be in there somewhere, or maybe elsewhere? who knows. Storing these mass-murdering weapons of doom is ultimately a long term problem, no matter what.
Nukes are terrible things, but they may be responsible for the fact that we never had a world war in the second half of the 20th century. If both superpowers hadn't had a nuclear deterrent, who's to say the Cold War wouldn't have turned into WW3?
It's weird not to be able to unequivocally say "I wish we could disinvent nuclear weapons"; occasionally I do say it, but then stop and wonder whether their threat of tremendous harm has persuaded humans not to engage in other great harm.
The only way out is for the folks with the missiles to realize that they are useless, and to get rid of them. The fact of the matter is that nuking us into oblivion is probably worse for anybody who does not get nuked, we get fried right off the bat, and they die slowly and painfully, nukes are their own deterrent.
I forget who said it, but it has been argued that nuclear proliferation, beyond being inevitable, is also desirable. States who develop nuclear capacity become stable rational actors, both because they can play the MAD card, and because it really does not take long for anyone to realize how absurd it would be to use them.
I say we need a 2 step process
1) Stop telling nations not to build nukes
and once everyone develops nukes
2) each state can build one big doomsday device and get rid of all their missiles, thereby reducing the number of nuclear devices that may malfunction.
This will, of course, mean any country can build its own nuclear reactors, which will seriously screw the oil economy, assuming we still have one by the time everyone gets the bomb.
So what, the Cuban missile crisis was all a charade? Soviet and American leaders got together beforehand and were like: "Hey, let's pretend to have a little standoff - you know, kind of get the crowd going a bit." I suppose all their missiles were filled with sawdust and cow parts. World history is pretty much WWE.
I'm curious, when did this start? Was it right after WWII that they had the meeting and worked out the script? Or was WWII part of it too? If so, I have to say that was a good move. Nobody wants to question the made-up history if half the people they know inexplicably died.
a means of taking control of media operations
This is such an insult to the billions of people in countries where the government actually does control media operations. Media here is controlled by money, and money is controlled by attention. This produces certain kinds of flaws in media coverage (like a tendency to support wars that involve hometown boys dying), but it doesn't make the media a government puppet.
Talking to people with views like yours, I quite often get told that I just can't handle the truth or something. I'd say it's just the opposite. To me, the real, scary, hard-to-accept truth is that there isn't a deeper level of reality or motivation to world events.
Despite how scary it seems, the world is shaped by people like Bush - people who got where they are by accidents of fate, and people who are not particularly more qualified than the average restaurant manager. These people don't plan to have a fake rivalry with Russia to subjugate the populace, they think "Oh yeah Russia, you can't mess with us - we'll build twice as many bombs".
They're motivated by fear and doubt and ego - just like the rest of us. Ascribing to them completely different, secret motives (as well as near absolute, behind-the-curtains power) means you'll never understand world history, and that you sacrifice what little influence you could have on your nation's future.
I've mentioned this before, but it seems like in the States now a lot of young people with good ideals are opting out of the political process entirely - because they kind of disbelieve in the whole system. As a consequence, you continue to get the same kind of leaders.
Come back to reality. You're needed!
Does that comment not cut the mustard?
$17.6 billion is a shit-ton of money is all I'm saying. Its about $60 per every man woman and child in this country. Investing to break down at least the majority of this historic money-pit seems like common sense to me.
These facts alone give me confidence that the USA and Russia will never use those nukes, unless something really bad happens like a revolution followed by dictatorship or religious fanatism. Of course those nukes can be sold to other countries, and thats the only thing that worries me right now.
Some people condemn the USA for using nukes in WWII, but they fail to see the big picture. Those bombs showed humanity what will happen if those bombs are used. I am pretty sure if nuclear weapons werent used in a war before, they would have been used by now, with much worse outcome.
American trained Cuban Exiles was another aggressive act towards Cuba, making the Cubans feel even more threatened that The States were going to invade and they asked the USSR for help in defending against the threat. and it was the americans that Blockaded cuba... i mean sorry "quarantined" them. (for those that don't look into this stuff, a blockade is an act of war). It's hard to be peaceful in a time where you guys keep making the 1st moves. for once, stay in your own country, fix it, then worry bout the world.
but then again, i don't live there so i may just be reading into things too much.
@ the first comments, you're saying we needed 7,500 nuclear weapons to blow up all of Russia? (150,000 x 0.05)
The "total distruction" radius of the Hiroshima bomb was only 1km. Most people 2km to 3km away from ground zero survived. The USSR had a land area of 22 million km^2. Obviously 7,500 would be enough to blow up the centers of the 7,500 biggest cities in Russia, but for example a hiroshima bomb in Manhattan would spare 90% of Long Island.