(October 29, 2011 at 3:49 am)Shell B Wrote: The internet is full of people being sarcastic and trolling. It is hardly an accurate gauge of the level of "crazy" in this world, though it is a fairly good indicator that people are strange.
Ah, but that is opinion. We have had men and women who were nuts enough to try to off large amounts of people, some of whom succeeded. Not a single one of those people was actually aiming to destroy the world, that I know of.
The scenario is the availability of weapons of mass destruction to anyone. There doesn't even need to be a chain reaction. Let's say we just had a group of 50 people who were willing to carry these weapons into various cities and detonate them simulataneously. When major cities start getting nuked, bombs start flying. If washington DC got hit, you can guarantee nukes would be launched at someone or everyone. There is a viritually inexaustible supply of suicide bombers ready and willing to volunteer for these missions.
(October 29, 2011 at 3:49 am)Shell B Wrote: Anything can set off a regional skirmish. However, regional skirmishes are rarely global. When they are, militaries are on alert for WMDs. While the potential for WWIII is absolute, the likelihood of it happening because of science is slim to none, in my opinion. It is people you should be worried about. They managed to kill shitloads of them with science back in the day too. Back then, weapons science was torture devices.
World War 1 started because the archduke of austria was assassinated. This was because of the complex web of alliances between the countries involved. It's very easy for something like this to get out of hand and spark global war.
You say it wouldn't happen because of science? It's only science that makes it possible. In our quest to make everything "better" with technology, aren't we just volunatarily putting a noose around our necks? Is there any wisdom in playing with powers we don't understand and can't contain once they're loosed?
(October 29, 2011 at 3:49 am)Shell B Wrote: Stable enough to launch at another country? A reactor is not a nuke, by they way.
It's proof that these things slip through the cracks and are more probable than you thought. Anyway, what do you think North Korea or Iran is doing in its spare time?
(October 29, 2011 at 3:49 am)Shell B Wrote: Oh, please. This is turning into a science is evil discussion. Here I was thinking we were just discussing a hypothetical and you launch into talking about science as if it were independently intelligent. Science needs people to do things. Not all people do not think about what technology will do when they develop it. Also, the development of the nuclear bomb was an arms race in one of the most important wars in history. The people who developed it had reason to believe that it didn't matter if it backfired, because another country was doing the same thing at the same time.
I don't think science is evil, but I do think that it will most certainly be used to destroy the planet, if it were possible that is. Just address the question:
"The point is, it could be something very simple. A new invention could create weapons we've never dreamed about. It's inevitable given the march of technology that the destructive capability available to individuals will at some point match the capability available to nations today"
Are you claiming this isn't true?
(October 29, 2011 at 3:49 am)Shell B Wrote: You did not demonstrate that. Your precise scenario involved a weapon built in someone's home and used to set off a chain reaction. When that happens, we call it domestic terrorism and it does not cause a chain reaction. Unless the person makes it look like a military move on another country or from another country, your chain reaction is not going to happen.
Again, if major cities are destroyed, nukes are going to fly, guaranteed. We almost had world war 3 over the cuban missle crisis. Do you think cooler heads will prevail when millions of people are dead?
(October 29, 2011 at 3:49 am)Shell B Wrote: Abortion.
I know you're trying to redirect the conversation to your pet topic, but I'll humor you. If you want to murder unborn children, why not just go for broke and shave off a few billion people who aren't doing anything more than using up resources. Why should we keep you around for that matter? How do we evaluate your worth as a human being?
