Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

Because Seth says so. That's all you need to know.

[mistermack]

I wonder why the defensive use of nuclear weapons is immoral while the defensive use of combat aircraft, artillery, tanks, ground-forces, or even hand guns isn't (other than just because Seth says so)?

I don't think it was immoral for the US to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the last war.
What's immoral is to pretend it didn't happen, and try to pretend that it's other countries that can't be trusted with Nukes.

The morality of war can never be clear. But the Japan nukes were easy to justify, given the behaviour of Japan before and during the war, and their sworn determination to fight to the last man.

with modern warfare, smaller forces like Isis and the Taliban will always hide their forces among civilians. It's their only defence against modern weapons like warplanes and missiles.
So who's fault is it, when civilians get killed? The people who dropped the bombs, or the people who hid their armies among innocents?
There's no answer to that. Neither side has any other option, other than surrender.

[Seth]

I wonder why the defensive use of nuclear weapons is immoral while the defensive use of combat aircraft, artillery, tanks, ground-forces, or even hand guns isn't (other than just because Seth says so)?

It has to do with the nature of weapon used and the intent in deploying them. Atomic bombs, like chemical and biological weapons are "weapons of mass destruction" precisely because they cannot be deployed selectively to target legitimate military targets, whereas more directed weapons can be, and according to the international laws of war are only supposed to be directed at legitimate military targets. Collateral damage to non-combatants is inevitable in any war, but the distinction is that with directed weapons the collateral damage is minimized and the intent of their deployment is to damage military targets, not terrorize and kill mass numbers of non-combatants.

Under that guideline, the use of mustard gas in WWI, Hitler's blitz campaign on London and the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo as well as the nuke deployments were immoral acts because they were intended to target civilians specifically in order to demoralize them.

[Seth]

Civilian casualties under the drone program are 10x what they are with conventional bombs.

I challenge this factoid. Drone strikes are quite pin-point and precise, which is the whole point of using them. Cite your evidence.

You don't give a fuck about anyone but Americans.

I give a fuck about everyone except those who tyrannize and enslave others. About them I give something less than a flying fuck because they are evil and therefore must be destroyed completely, just as we use antibiotics to destroy infections, for the overall health of the human species.

And you've repeatedly called for nukes to be used in the middle east.

A: You lie.
B: On the occasions I have suggested it, I did so sarcastically as an over-the-top response to tyrantophiles like you who argue in support of tyranny and despotism.

I don't even know why I am doing this for the 4 billionth time.

You do it because I am one of the Internet's foremost interlocutors who's skill at eliciting comment and participation in critical discussions is unparalleled in the history of mankind and you simply cannot stop yourself. Well, except maybe Socrates.

You simply don't understand logic and reasoning, and have no intention of having honest debate.

Pot, kettle, black times infinity.

[Seth]

Yet you advocate murdering millions of innocent civilians in Syria just because ISIS is based there.

You're a liar. I have never advocated doing that. You have however repeatedly erected this false accusation of a strawman.

Yes it does, but the problem is that no national leader since Alexander the Great has known how to go to war. When you go to war you unleash the dogs of war and tell them to destroy the enemy utterly, and as quickly and efficiently as possible with a minimum of casualties to themselves and you give them any weapon or tool they need to do so. You destroy the enemy's troops, infrastructure, supply lines, dams, power stations, sewer plants, water plants and anything else the enemy can use. You bring them to their knees so they surrender and then you tell them they'd better behave or you'll bomb them right back into the stone age again and again and again, as many times as it takes, without mercy or quarter.

Did you see a single reference to the intentional targeting of non-military targets or non-combatants?

Nope.

As for "any weapon or tool" that of course excludes WMDs precisely because they cannot be specifically targeted at valid military targets and combatants.

Nice try though, but FAIL!

[Seth]

This isn't the report, but is relevant.

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

That's unfortunate but is the fault of the terrorists who use non-combatants as human shields. The lesson is that if you don't want to be collateral damage in a targeted drone strike, don't hang out with terrorists. Instead, if you simply shoot them, cut their heads off and ship them to us we won't have to use drone strikes at all.

Besides, it doesn't say how many of those other people killed actually are terrorists or supporters and conspirators of terrorists who needed to be just as dead as the targeted individual. If one man is targeted and 13 other terrorists in the same convoy are killed as well that's just bonus points.

[Seth]

Western airforces don't carpet bomb any more, as far as I am aware. The difference is in the pilot and associated aircraft being able to better assess whether a strike should go ahead. Maybe also a case of different missile technologies too.

Okay, that's just plain ignorance of how drones are used.

Drones are MUCH better at precision strikes than piloted jet aircraft precisely because they are low-speed aircraft that can loiter in the target's vicinity unnoticed for a long time. They are equipped with incredibly effective sensor suites including gyro-stabilized visible light and thermal camera systems that can zoom in on an individual building, vehicle and even on an INDIVIDUAL and identify him and then automatically track movement of anyone tagged by the pilots who fly the drones (there's two of them, one flys the drone and the other one operates the sensor suite) and can track an individual or vehicle for many miles to a meet point while waiting for other targets to assemble before shoving a Hellfire guided missile right up the target's ass with incredible precision. Moreover, the drone pilots don't operate in an oversight vacuum fraught with bureaucratic delays over authorizations to fire or revocations of such authorizations that must be transmitted through several layers of military bureaucracy to get to a jet pilot. Instead, the drone operators are supervised by command personnel right at the operating point, and these commanders can approve or override a shoot decision in an instant.

Compared to a jet and pilot flying 400 knots on a deployment pass who at best has a radar or IR lock on a designated target who has mere second in which to deploy the weapon effectively and very little ability to assess anything at all because he does not have, nor could he operate and fly at the same time, the sophisticated sensor suite that makes drones so incredibly effective in both destroying the desired target and avoiding non-combatant casualties where it is possible to do so.

You need to do more research before you spout off about things you clearly know nothing about.

[Jason]

What the fuck are you talking about gun control for?? You were claiming science military and government immoral, yet your moral compass is demonstrably 180 degrees arse about.

No, I said invention and development of the atomic bomb was immoral. Somebody else improperly attempted to expand that to all military weapons. You're erecting strawman arguments, as usual.

Rubbish. The deployment of the atomic bomb was, arguably, immoral. The 'invention' was simply a discovery of the natural laws of the universe in which we inhabit. Is it your argument that there is a moral impetus to remain ignorant or are you just being grandiose?

[Seth]

What the fuck are you talking about gun control for?? You were claiming science military and government immoral, yet your moral compass is demonstrably 180 degrees arse about.

No, I said invention and development of the atomic bomb was immoral. Somebody else improperly attempted to expand that to all military weapons. You're erecting strawman arguments, as usual.

Rubbish. The deployment of the atomic bomb was, arguably, immoral. The 'invention' was simply a discovery of the natural laws of the universe in which we inhabit. Is it your argument that there is a moral impetus to remain ignorant or are you just being grandiose?

No, it was the discovery of natural laws followed by a deliberate intent to use those natural laws to create a weapon of mass destruction for the express purpose of killing massive numbers of non-combatants in a military action. Understanding the nature of fission and knowing that it could be used to develop a bomb is different from taking that knowledge and using it to build a bomb. A rational and ethical scientist, upon learning the nature of fission and fusion and upon realizing the evil use to which such natural phenomena could be put would refuse to participate or support any attempt to do so, and it is within the power of the non-scientist larger community to forbid any scientist from pursuing such technology as a matter of societal self-defense.

[Hermit]

The Germans wanted total war.



They got it.

The Japanese were warned several times that unless they surrender, Japan will experience utter and total destruction. They killed the ultimatums with silence. US bombers dropped millions of leaflets announcing the imminent destruction of named cities. They were ignored.

Here is one of the warnings. Truman made that speech in July 1945.



After the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima Truman announced there was more of the same to come. The Japanese warred on regardless.

[Jason]

How does giving warning of intent to commit a crime against humanity make it no longer a crime against humanity? How does it shift the burden of responsibility to address the lesser claim implicit in your post for that matter?

[Hermit]

How does giving warning of intent to commit a crime against humanity make it no longer a crime against humanity?

It doesn't.

How does it shift the burden of responsibility to address the lesser claim implicit in your post for that matter?

As one who lacks a belief in the existence of free will I avoid the word "responsibility" as much as I can, and whenever I do use it I do so in the context of cause and effect rather than blame and praise, except when the latter is a useful device (or white lie, if you like) for positive reinforcement.

I suspect you read a whole lot of things into my post that are not there.

[Brian Peacock]

I wonder why the defensive use of nuclear weapons is immoral while the defensive use of combat aircraft, artillery, tanks, ground-forces, or even hand guns isn't (other than just because Seth says so)?

It has to do with the nature of weapon used and the intent in deploying them. Atomic bombs, like chemical and biological weapons are "weapons of mass destruction" precisely because they cannot be deployed selectively to target legitimate military targets, whereas more directed weapons can be, and according to the international laws of war are only supposed to be directed at legitimate military targets. Collateral damage to non-combatants is inevitable in any war, but the distinction is that with directed weapons the collateral damage is minimized and the intent of their deployment is to damage military targets, not terrorize and kill mass numbers of non-combatants.

Under that guideline, the use of mustard gas in WWI, Hitler's blitz campaign on London and the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo as well as the nuke deployments were immoral acts because they were intended to target civilians specifically in order to demoralize them.

Tell that to the people of Dresden and Coventry.

[Seth]

I wonder why the defensive use of nuclear weapons is immoral while the defensive use of combat aircraft, artillery, tanks, ground-forces, or even hand guns isn't (other than just because Seth says so)?

It has to do with the nature of weapon used and the intent in deploying them. Atomic bombs, like chemical and biological weapons are "weapons of mass destruction" precisely because they cannot be deployed selectively to target legitimate military targets, whereas more directed weapons can be, and according to the international laws of war are only supposed to be directed at legitimate military targets. Collateral damage to non-combatants is inevitable in any war, but the distinction is that with directed weapons the collateral damage is minimized and the intent of their deployment is to damage military targets, not terrorize and kill mass numbers of non-combatants.

Under that guideline, the use of mustard gas in WWI, Hitler's blitz campaign on London and the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo as well as the nuke deployments were immoral acts because they were intended to target civilians specifically in order to demoralize them.

Tell that to the people of Dresden and Coventry.

That is exactly my point. Such tactics and weapons are always immoral no matter who applies them or for what ostensible purpose or justification.

[pErvinalia]

Yet you advocate murdering millions of innocent civilians in Syria just because ISIS is based there.

You're a liar. I have never advocated doing that. You have however repeatedly erected this false accusation of a strawman.

Yes it does, but the problem is that no national leader since Alexander the Great has known how to go to war. When you go to war you unleash the dogs of war and tell them to destroy the enemy utterly, and as quickly and efficiently as possible with a minimum of casualties to themselves and you give them any weapon or tool they need to do so. You destroy the enemy's troops, infrastructure, supply lines, dams, power stations, sewer plants, water plants and anything else the enemy can use. You bring them to their knees so they surrender and then you tell them they'd better behave or you'll bomb them right back into the stone age again and again and again, as many times as it takes, without mercy or quarter.

Did you see a single reference to the intentional targeting of non-military targets or non-combatants?

Nope.

Yep, in the two links above that. And in that reference you suggest bombing a country back to the stone age. How is that NOT targetting non-military targets??

Yet again I wonder why I am doing this. You are a dishonest cunt of the highest order.

As for "any weapon or tool" that of course excludes WMDs precisely because they cannot be specifically targeted at valid military targets and combatants.

Nice try though, but FAIL!

What a truckload of bollocks. Just more of your logical fallacies - shifting the goal posts (and outright dishonesty).

This conversation is going on ignore. You're a major dishonest shit.