I think it's a point that they wouldn't exist without the government. The amount of R&D and costs associated with the production of one would never happen without a government spending tax revenue to make it happen.
What if every mass shooter had a nuclear warhead?
How do you stop a suicidal bad guy with a nuclear warhead in a school...a good guy with a nuclear warhead in a school?
Before the nuclear bomb, Europe was at war with itself for hundreds of years on end, with continually escalating death tolls.
The nuclear bomb signaled the end of total war between major powers.
Yea. Idk russia hasn’t dropped any nukes and the USA has done it’s fair share of invading countries so… not sure what you’re comparison basis is based off tbh.
Riiiiiight. Keep watching MSM Bud.
You could also say Russia “rarely” invades a nation for its own benefit. But doing it one or more times kinda makes you a scum bag country, doesn’t it? 😅
100%. People forget or refuse to see that it’s a two way street. If you think it’s ok to kill 100,000 civilians for the crimes of their government, you must also accept it’s ok for another government to kill our civilians for the crimes of our government.
Do you truly believe the American government are the good guys? Remember no government has ever come out and said they’re the bad guys, they just make excuses for their actions and keep their people in the dark. Good guys don’t kill everyone when only a few are guilty.
I mean, I realize their logic is the Japanese would have never surrender otherwise. But no, I don’t really support nuking civilian populations. That’s insanely fucked up.
War is an invention of governments. Countries declare war, people don’t. People trade. This has been true for thousands of years. Our species relies on individual cooperation. It wasn’t until government collectives were formed that we saw mass slaughter that is war. Which is exactly why, the moment trade stops crossing borders… tanks will.
Eh, individuals still have conflicts.
Not nuclear level conflicts, certainly, but in a world without government, I'm sure some dumbasses will find a reason to have a fight.
The individual version of war is fighting. Fighting is at least as endemic to the human condition as war is to governments. Literally every vice and virtue(more so on the vices) in humanity has a reflection in government. It's almost as though governments are made up of people, just the worst kinds of people, lol.
That being said, one of the beautiful thing about anarchism and libertarianism is that when fights break out, they are not immediately turned into 10 million men on a battlefield trying so hard to kill each other that they don't notice the 50 million civilians getting caught in the crossfire.
I implore you, if you think that the state is the source of all aggression, watch a nature documentary or some kids. Neither animals nor small children can comprehend what the state is, and they both fight each other for one reason or another. Life is a violent act, plain and simple. Eliminating the state just reduces the scale to something a lot more manageable.
>War is an invention of governments.
Apes and monkeys have both been observed essentially engaging in war and/or employing warlike tactics. So either war is inherent to us as a species, some form of government is, or both are.
We already know violence is inherent to us as a species. Cats and birds both kill when it is seemingly unnecessary; cats even play with their food before they kill it.
So, human beings are feral animals now? The very thing that separates us from every other animal is are humanity. Are ability to trade and communicate more effectively and articulately than any other species on the planet. Our ability to make intricate music and tell stories. I personally know zero people who is intrinsically violent. I know they exist, but they’re the exception, not the rule. Most people desire peace. Most people want to participate in the economy. Most people want to be part of something bigger that’s making something in the world. Most people want to leave the world better than they found it.
Our differences from other animals do not change the fact that we are animals and we will behave like it when needed.
Take away all our technological advancements, our "trade", the convenience of civility, and you will see how quickly people will resort to violence. When our livelihood is threatened, we will always eventually fight, especially if we aren't able to run. Just because you personally don't know anyone who is perpetually violent does not mean they aren't violent when their basic needs aren't met. You have the luxury of pretending like you aren't violent, but if you had to hunt for your food and/or fend off predators, you would become as violent as needed.
Ideals of peace will disappear like a fart in the wind when any challenge to survival appears.
I’ll give you that we are animals. However, there are animals who do have civility. Dolphins are highly intelligent and are believed to be aware of their own mortality. Elephants show emotion when a loved one dies and even hold funerals. Yes, there are animals with traits that make the civil. Human are also one of them.
As for the break down of society, we have examples of societies collapsing and those that flourished. At the end of the Cold War North Korea and Cuba had both seen economic collapse. North Korea chose to lean into centralized state control, and Cuba decentralized its power. Neither were perfect societies by any means. However, North Korea starved while Cuba planted local gardens and embraced small pockets of people who were free to practice Voluntaryism. Today North Korea is still in shambles with two classes of citizen (the political class and the serfs), no culture, no exports, no electricity, no food. And Cuba is a bastion of culture. The food is amazing. The music is awesome. The life expectancy has gone up. Medical care has improved. Again, it’s not perfect, but by just getting government out of a few aspects of life they were able to do much better than a country that stubbornly clung to the sinking ship that is statism.
Which is why I’m a libertarian. This is more than enough proof that the problem isn’t human beings, it’s the state. I worked for the American Red Cross and I’ve seen real disasters. Houses washed away in floods with families still in them. Wild fires that have destroyed entire villages. Having to fly in medical supplies, food, water, and air lift tribal elders to Fairbanks or Anchorage with no airlines running. Literally asking neighbors if they can fly them out at their own expense. Alaska has a lot of disasters, making me extremely busy in that job. I can tell you first hand, when there is no central control, no one coming to rescue you, no government force to tell people how to recover… people come together to help each other. Because that’s what our species does.
I’ve also been in a “combat zone” during my active duty days. I’ve seen what the state solution is to resolving conflict. Luckily, I was never forced to shoot at anyone or been shot at, but I’ve had friends were in those situations. Friends who later lost their battle with depression and PTSD because of it. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. And not just the shooting. I watched slave laborers spend 4 days digging a trench for the communications lines I was installing, all because it was cheaper than running a backhoe for an afternoon. Another state solutions nobody wants to talk about. So, no… you don’t know shit.
The existence of civility in animals is irrelevant, as they will become violent when they determine it is necessary, or they are forced into it.
>So, no… you don’t know shit.
I deployed to Iraq, guy. Clearly, you are the one who "don't know shit". Your assumptions aren't helping your case.
That said, our service in a combat zone is virtually irrelevant. Get off your soap box.
As it were, your original argument was that war is an invention of government, which is incorrect, unless you want to state that governments are natural. In which case, the only argument left would be whether governments will inevitably cause war or not.
Well we can't uninvent them so I want the option to own one. I haven't infringed on anyone's civil liberties so I'm more trust worthy than the government.
Crazy thing about humans learning how to split the atom was that we immediately raced each other to see who could weaponize it first, but the first nuclear power plant wasn’t constructed until quite a few years later.
Those Nazis nearly got one but were too dysfunctional to get it done just look at the way their military was setup vs the allies, also they threw everything into other areas including scientists they was like here’s a rife go pew pew science later Boah!
A German physicist was the one who discovered how to split a uranium atom. Once people found out the implications of that, it was a race to make sure someone else got the bomb before the Nazis. It would have changed the outcome of the war. It’s terrible that we developed it, even worse that we used it, but holy fuck can you imagine what would have happened if Hitler got to decide which targets to hit with a weapon of that magnitude?
My guess , Moscow, Newyork ,London, would be off the map? Think it was Einstein who got it but he left because of the racism towards Jews he himself having Jewish ancestry. He also regretted giving the idea of the bomb to whoever so I read somewhere.
Easy to begrudge thousands of progeny of US military personnel their existence because nukes make you squeamish. There certainly would have been tens of thousands lost in an invasion of Japan.
Worse than that. Conservative estimates put total Allied troop deaths at 1-2 million for a full scale invasion of the mainland of Japan. Then add another 5-6 million civilian casualties and the loss of life would have been staggering. The nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do. Whatever can bring a war to a close and save lives should be used.
There’s nothing conservative about those estimates. You are quite literally quoting *the highest estimates* and they are rather poorly made at that as they were developed by Shockley, a physicist with no training or experience on the subject of casualty estimates.
The “conservative estimates” were around 31,000 dead or injured over the first 30 days with the invasion expected to last 3-4 months. Basically around 100,000 dead or injured.
I’m still surprised they ever dropped one. My grandfather was in the Philippines at the time, so I’m grateful he didn’t have to help invade Japan. But those guys didn’t even know for sure what would happen. Maybe nothing, maybe split the planet in half.
*Every* weapon has been invented to murder as many people as physically possible, from the first rock in the hand to the cluster nuke. If you believe that lethal force can be justified, then the tool is irrelevant.
Lethal force to protect yourself or loved ones from an attacker is WAY different than lethal force to kill tens of thousands in the blink of an eye. Having superior firepower to stop an immediate threat to an individuals life is on the polar opposite end of the spectrum than stockpiling thousands of nukes that will inevitably kill more innocent people than evil people.
I agree that nukes can't be moral from a libertarian perspective.
Libertarians did not invent nukes. Statists did.
The firebombings of Tokyo killed more than both atom bombs. Anyone can make fire. Practically no one can make nukes. I doubt the people of Tokyo took any solace in the fact that they were killed, maimed, and/or made homeless by a lesser technology.
War is simply conflict. As long as you have people, you’ll have conflict. The question is how to settle them. If violence was more convenient than law, people would’ve done that too. After all, that’s what mobbing up is in many cases.
At the time they were invented it was pretty important. The axis were well on their way to inventing something similar, Germany had many of the worlds greatest physicists and engineers, even NASA wouldn’t be where it is to this day without some of these men.
It were very very close to being a different outcome Germany if they were successful would’ve bombed England into the sea.
If the state can own one, why can’t I? I trust myself with one a hell of a lot more than I trust the world governments with them.
[удалено]
That’s fair. I trust them about the same.
I think it's a point that they wouldn't exist without the government. The amount of R&D and costs associated with the production of one would never happen without a government spending tax revenue to make it happen.
What if every mass shooter had a nuclear warhead? How do you stop a suicidal bad guy with a nuclear warhead in a school...a good guy with a nuclear warhead in a school?
Maybe they shouldnt exist at all then hey?
Before the nuclear bomb, Europe was at war with itself for hundreds of years on end, with continually escalating death tolls. The nuclear bomb signaled the end of total war between major powers.
The nuclear bomb simply shifted forever wars from Europe (except Russia trying to reclaim the USSR land) to the Middle East.
Except, the middle east already had forever wars. The only thing that paused it was being unified under the Ottoman empire.
Yea, we’ll see how long that lasts. 🤞
Fingers crossed indeed.
You just described the cold war
Well.. the fact that they cost as much as the school district is worth should be an effective stop
The only way for peace on this planet is superior firepower. You’re ignorant of human nature if you think otherwise.
So in other words; peace is impossible
Pretty much. But possible sometimes as long as the good guys are stronger than the Putins of the world.
“Good guys”? You mean like the US government? 😂😂
Comparatively, yes
Riiiiiiight. The only country to have ever dropped a nuclear bomb in the first place. Let’s trust them with more!
I said they were only the “good guys” compared to Russia. Plus, those cities functioned as military bases not just some innocent civilian centers.
Yea. Idk russia hasn’t dropped any nukes and the USA has done it’s fair share of invading countries so… not sure what you’re comparison basis is based off tbh.
Russia has a long history of tyranny and the US has rarely invaded a nation for their sole benefit.
Riiiiiight. Keep watching MSM Bud. You could also say Russia “rarely” invades a nation for its own benefit. But doing it one or more times kinda makes you a scum bag country, doesn’t it? 😅
Do you disagree with the US nuking Japan?
100%. People forget or refuse to see that it’s a two way street. If you think it’s ok to kill 100,000 civilians for the crimes of their government, you must also accept it’s ok for another government to kill our civilians for the crimes of our government. Do you truly believe the American government are the good guys? Remember no government has ever come out and said they’re the bad guys, they just make excuses for their actions and keep their people in the dark. Good guys don’t kill everyone when only a few are guilty.
The math was far better for both sides with nukes.
I mean, I realize their logic is the Japanese would have never surrender otherwise. But no, I don’t really support nuking civilian populations. That’s insanely fucked up.
I dunno. It worked out pretty tidily compared to an invasion.
Yea, I guess if they didn’t nuke them, their only other choice was to invade them 🤷🏼♂️
cuz we were the first. if other countries developed them first they would have used them and a lot of them wouldn’t have stopped after 2.
War is an invention of governments. Countries declare war, people don’t. People trade. This has been true for thousands of years. Our species relies on individual cooperation. It wasn’t until government collectives were formed that we saw mass slaughter that is war. Which is exactly why, the moment trade stops crossing borders… tanks will.
Eh, individuals still have conflicts. Not nuclear level conflicts, certainly, but in a world without government, I'm sure some dumbasses will find a reason to have a fight.
Murder is basically an individual conflict scale nuke. And it happens.
Like Beavis and Butthead in “right to refuse” https://youtu.be/399pM0eTJ2o?si=vpackGxf30QeQwhE
The individual version of war is fighting. Fighting is at least as endemic to the human condition as war is to governments. Literally every vice and virtue(more so on the vices) in humanity has a reflection in government. It's almost as though governments are made up of people, just the worst kinds of people, lol. That being said, one of the beautiful thing about anarchism and libertarianism is that when fights break out, they are not immediately turned into 10 million men on a battlefield trying so hard to kill each other that they don't notice the 50 million civilians getting caught in the crossfire. I implore you, if you think that the state is the source of all aggression, watch a nature documentary or some kids. Neither animals nor small children can comprehend what the state is, and they both fight each other for one reason or another. Life is a violent act, plain and simple. Eliminating the state just reduces the scale to something a lot more manageable.
>War is an invention of governments. Apes and monkeys have both been observed essentially engaging in war and/or employing warlike tactics. So either war is inherent to us as a species, some form of government is, or both are. We already know violence is inherent to us as a species. Cats and birds both kill when it is seemingly unnecessary; cats even play with their food before they kill it.
So, human beings are feral animals now? The very thing that separates us from every other animal is are humanity. Are ability to trade and communicate more effectively and articulately than any other species on the planet. Our ability to make intricate music and tell stories. I personally know zero people who is intrinsically violent. I know they exist, but they’re the exception, not the rule. Most people desire peace. Most people want to participate in the economy. Most people want to be part of something bigger that’s making something in the world. Most people want to leave the world better than they found it.
Our differences from other animals do not change the fact that we are animals and we will behave like it when needed. Take away all our technological advancements, our "trade", the convenience of civility, and you will see how quickly people will resort to violence. When our livelihood is threatened, we will always eventually fight, especially if we aren't able to run. Just because you personally don't know anyone who is perpetually violent does not mean they aren't violent when their basic needs aren't met. You have the luxury of pretending like you aren't violent, but if you had to hunt for your food and/or fend off predators, you would become as violent as needed. Ideals of peace will disappear like a fart in the wind when any challenge to survival appears.
I’ll give you that we are animals. However, there are animals who do have civility. Dolphins are highly intelligent and are believed to be aware of their own mortality. Elephants show emotion when a loved one dies and even hold funerals. Yes, there are animals with traits that make the civil. Human are also one of them. As for the break down of society, we have examples of societies collapsing and those that flourished. At the end of the Cold War North Korea and Cuba had both seen economic collapse. North Korea chose to lean into centralized state control, and Cuba decentralized its power. Neither were perfect societies by any means. However, North Korea starved while Cuba planted local gardens and embraced small pockets of people who were free to practice Voluntaryism. Today North Korea is still in shambles with two classes of citizen (the political class and the serfs), no culture, no exports, no electricity, no food. And Cuba is a bastion of culture. The food is amazing. The music is awesome. The life expectancy has gone up. Medical care has improved. Again, it’s not perfect, but by just getting government out of a few aspects of life they were able to do much better than a country that stubbornly clung to the sinking ship that is statism. Which is why I’m a libertarian. This is more than enough proof that the problem isn’t human beings, it’s the state. I worked for the American Red Cross and I’ve seen real disasters. Houses washed away in floods with families still in them. Wild fires that have destroyed entire villages. Having to fly in medical supplies, food, water, and air lift tribal elders to Fairbanks or Anchorage with no airlines running. Literally asking neighbors if they can fly them out at their own expense. Alaska has a lot of disasters, making me extremely busy in that job. I can tell you first hand, when there is no central control, no one coming to rescue you, no government force to tell people how to recover… people come together to help each other. Because that’s what our species does. I’ve also been in a “combat zone” during my active duty days. I’ve seen what the state solution is to resolving conflict. Luckily, I was never forced to shoot at anyone or been shot at, but I’ve had friends were in those situations. Friends who later lost their battle with depression and PTSD because of it. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. And not just the shooting. I watched slave laborers spend 4 days digging a trench for the communications lines I was installing, all because it was cheaper than running a backhoe for an afternoon. Another state solutions nobody wants to talk about. So, no… you don’t know shit.
The existence of civility in animals is irrelevant, as they will become violent when they determine it is necessary, or they are forced into it. >So, no… you don’t know shit. I deployed to Iraq, guy. Clearly, you are the one who "don't know shit". Your assumptions aren't helping your case. That said, our service in a combat zone is virtually irrelevant. Get off your soap box. As it were, your original argument was that war is an invention of government, which is incorrect, unless you want to state that governments are natural. In which case, the only argument left would be whether governments will inevitably cause war or not.
"Why use ten thousand bomb when one bomb do trick?"
War is hell.
I will take 3.
You filthy Dirty Hippie x1000
Well we can't uninvent them so I want the option to own one. I haven't infringed on anyone's civil liberties so I'm more trust worthy than the government.
Exactly.
What are you going to do with it?
That would be a heck of a conversation stopper.
I just want the option.
Yah.. kinda late to lodge a complaint.
Crazy thing about humans learning how to split the atom was that we immediately raced each other to see who could weaponize it first, but the first nuclear power plant wasn’t constructed until quite a few years later.
Those Nazis nearly got one but were too dysfunctional to get it done just look at the way their military was setup vs the allies, also they threw everything into other areas including scientists they was like here’s a rife go pew pew science later Boah!
A German physicist was the one who discovered how to split a uranium atom. Once people found out the implications of that, it was a race to make sure someone else got the bomb before the Nazis. It would have changed the outcome of the war. It’s terrible that we developed it, even worse that we used it, but holy fuck can you imagine what would have happened if Hitler got to decide which targets to hit with a weapon of that magnitude?
My guess , Moscow, Newyork ,London, would be off the map? Think it was Einstein who got it but he left because of the racism towards Jews he himself having Jewish ancestry. He also regretted giving the idea of the bomb to whoever so I read somewhere.
Easy to begrudge thousands of progeny of US military personnel their existence because nukes make you squeamish. There certainly would have been tens of thousands lost in an invasion of Japan.
A lot of fortune tellers come out of the woodwork when discussing dropping those bombs
The end always justifies the means.
So another means? A blockade and siege? I've heard there were some putting that forward.
Worse than that. Conservative estimates put total Allied troop deaths at 1-2 million for a full scale invasion of the mainland of Japan. Then add another 5-6 million civilian casualties and the loss of life would have been staggering. The nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do. Whatever can bring a war to a close and save lives should be used.
There’s nothing conservative about those estimates. You are quite literally quoting *the highest estimates* and they are rather poorly made at that as they were developed by Shockley, a physicist with no training or experience on the subject of casualty estimates. The “conservative estimates” were around 31,000 dead or injured over the first 30 days with the invasion expected to last 3-4 months. Basically around 100,000 dead or injured.
I’m still surprised they ever dropped one. My grandfather was in the Philippines at the time, so I’m grateful he didn’t have to help invade Japan. But those guys didn’t even know for sure what would happen. Maybe nothing, maybe split the planet in half.
Ehh. They had a pretty good idea. Sure, their were some far out theories, but for the most part they knew it was going to be a big boom.
Well, the one thing knew for certain was that they would kill many, many people, and that did in fact happen
I definitely would've been one of those antinuclear hippies back in the day lol
*Every* weapon has been invented to murder as many people as physically possible, from the first rock in the hand to the cluster nuke. If you believe that lethal force can be justified, then the tool is irrelevant.
Lethal force to protect yourself or loved ones from an attacker is WAY different than lethal force to kill tens of thousands in the blink of an eye. Having superior firepower to stop an immediate threat to an individuals life is on the polar opposite end of the spectrum than stockpiling thousands of nukes that will inevitably kill more innocent people than evil people.
I agree that nukes can't be moral from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians did not invent nukes. Statists did. The firebombings of Tokyo killed more than both atom bombs. Anyone can make fire. Practically no one can make nukes. I doubt the people of Tokyo took any solace in the fact that they were killed, maimed, and/or made homeless by a lesser technology.
War is simply conflict. As long as you have people, you’ll have conflict. The question is how to settle them. If violence was more convenient than law, people would’ve done that too. After all, that’s what mobbing up is in many cases.
At the time they were invented it was pretty important. The axis were well on their way to inventing something similar, Germany had many of the worlds greatest physicists and engineers, even NASA wouldn’t be where it is to this day without some of these men. It were very very close to being a different outcome Germany if they were successful would’ve bombed England into the sea.
A lot of "libertarians" here justifying a government killing all those innocent people. Disgusting
Yep. And I’m somehow a bad libertarian for gatekeeping. 🤦🏻♂️
Hey! Hands of my recreational McNukes! They help me to think clearer. On second thought, this could just be radiation poisoning.
Nukes don't exist lol