Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hqxtd wrote

Reply to comment by CupResponsible797 in Zero Days (2016) - Stuxnet, a piece of self-replicating computer malware that the U.S. and Israel unleashed to destroy a key part of an Iranian nuclear facility, and which ultimately spread beyond its intended target. [01:53:51] by Missing_Trillions

If nuclear weapons are so bad why doesn't the US give up theirs?

0

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4hu9kq wrote

Ah, the old “I don’t wanna bicker about me being wrong so I’m goin got change the arguement” arguement.

7

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hvdcg wrote

The guy isn't from EE, check his profile lol

0

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hxx9t wrote

Where do you think I am from? My comment history makes it pretty clear that I live in the UK, the way I write should make it more than obvious that I'm not a native English speaker.

Anyway, I'm a UA/RO dual national.

3

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4i0xzf wrote

This guy paints a picture of the US dropping nukes as a bad thing. Numbers alone suggest that’s incorrect, 2 million Japanese died in WW2, the whole world lost 3% of people. Scores of people. If the US hadn’t dropped the bombs untold numbers of people would have died. The US didn’t roar into WW2 they were pulled in after trying to stay out. This guys a fuckin idiot.

3

CupResponsible797 t1_j4i2k55 wrote

I don't think you're entirely wrong, but there exists a strong counterpoint to this.

Many argue that Japan did not capitulate because of the nukes, Japan capitulated because Soviet Union entered the war.

3

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4i45ie wrote

Oh man, I agree a web diagram could go in a thousand directions but we only know what happened because of what happened.

2

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4hxlty wrote

I couldn’t care less where either of you are from. You’re argument is garbage.

2

charleswj t1_j4huibz wrote

"I believe guns are bad. Therefore, even though there's someone pointing theirs at me right now, I will immediately disarm."

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hvav3 wrote

Now think through the same argument from a non US perspective, you'd be surprised how foolish you look

2

Carbon_60 t1_j4hvsvx wrote

Total outside perspective here. No bone in the comment thread.

You look like the foolish one.

And I won't be replying to whatever foolish response you have.

2

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hykd2 wrote

I think most people can agree that fewer people with nukes is better than more people with nukes.

More people with nukes means more nuke usage, everyone having nukes means rather frequent nuke usage.

I personally would strongly prefer to live in a world without nukes. I can't have that, so I'll be happy with the less maximalist goal of nobody using nukes. The most realistic way to achieve that is for less people to have nukes.

2

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hzyvs wrote

So the US should give up theirs, right?

2

CupResponsible797 t1_j4i05x9 wrote

In an ideal world, of course.

But in the end, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a good thing that US is working against nuclear proliferation.

2

charleswj t1_j4kermt wrote

Yes, and let Russia and the UK and France and Israel and India and Pakistan and North Korea keep theirs because they'll surely disarm right after us

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4kfy1k wrote

So as long as all of those don't give them up Iran shouldn't either. Right?

0

charleswj t1_j4kg73a wrote

Feel free to play your false equivalence game by yourself

1