We are, in fact, still here. Aren’t we? There have been several times where we almost started World War 3, either by natural escalation, or just plain by mistake - but we blinked every time. The most terrifying thing about mutually assured destruction is that it seems to work quite well.
I just mentioned the tactical nuke thing, because of the idea that guns lower crime. If a little handgun will lower crime, then a WMD should entirely nullify it.
Plan A: Gunpowder. Plan B: More gunpowerder. Plan C: Nuke it. Plan D: Nuke it from Space. 
Not just between Russia and America either. India and Pakistan have held more peace talks since they’ve both tested nukes, than the decades before. There hasn’t been an unified Arab invasion of Israel, ever since they unofficially became known to possess a nuclear stockpile. No one dares talk about invading North Korea anymore - it’s always about getting them back to the table, than threatening them with force. Sad to say it, but on the international stage, nukes are really good insurance.
At least until someone can get a 99.9% reliable SDI program working.
No it doesn’t. Put that strawman away 
There’s such a thing as limits. Taking the rationale behind a good idea, ignoring the limits, and then showing that the result is ridiculous is a classic way to discredit someone unfairly. The argument that widespread availability of guns reduces crime rests on the idea that any random member of the public can pull it out at any time and blow you away if you try anything stupid. That only works if the amount of force involved is proportional.
I guarantee that under your example, I could break into your house, hold you at gunpoint, and wipe the place clean, and you wouldn’t set the nuke off. A nuke is so far overkill that nobody would ever use it, and the credible threat of retaliation evaporates. Instead drunk people would occasionally vaporize a couple city blocks (which would in itself be a kind of crime). Or if you hate somebody, just break into his house, and rig the device to go off. I’m pretty sure there isn’t going to be much evidence left behind for them to piece together whodunit. But the actual effect of eliminating the kind of petty crime that gun-rights people talk about? Wouldn’t happen if you replace “gun” with “nuke”, the same way it wouldn’t work if you replace “gun” with “knife”.
When was the last time someone walked into a McDonald’s and killed a dozen people with a baseball bat? Yet such incidents happen with guns on a fairly regular basis. Different tools, different kinds of utility. Personally, I’m highly skeptical of the gun rights claims, but this nuke business proves nothing.
Pishaw… that means I just need a bigger weapon. 50 years of Republican Dogma can’t be wrong! If a tactical nuke ain’t enough, then I need a Tsar Bomba. Firepower = Freedom = Paradise!
God Bless America and no where else! USA! USA! USA!
Which dogma are you talking about? The right to bear arms is constitutional, so I assume you are talking about something else. Is it the “who wields the biggest stick” comment? Though I think that was a progressive who said that.
As argued by a friend of mine: NOWHERE in the Constitution is there ANY limitation on what arms may be owned. The ONLY Constitutional “restriction” comes from “letters of marqe”, and that is a matter of international relations: the permission to essentially wage a private war, with the presumption that a crew already had the weapons systems (battleships at the time) needed to carry out the permitted attack. There is no “small” prefex to “arms”. There is no “allowed” limiting “shall not be infringed”.
Everyone should be able to obtain nuclear weapons, bio warfare diseases, and lethal chemical agents. Says so in the Constitution. No infringement whatsoever, of what weapon I can own. Furthermore so long as I retain the legal status to vote, I retain the legal status to bear arms. Says so in the Constitution. Doesn’t matter if I’m mentally insane, so long as I’m not a convicted criminal: NOWHERE in the Constitution is there ANY limitation on the metal condition of a person, to bear arms… only their status as a free US citizen.
All forms of arms control are un-Constitution: so writ and spoken by the Constitution itself. Clearly the Constitution is infallible, so Nukes for everyone! Even people with anger management problems, the mentally challenged, or senile old people. Wheeeee!
Nukes aren’t that cheap, and it’s a capitalist society. You have to buy your own nukes.
Technically, it is unconstitutional to regulate Nuclear warhead distribution. Luckily, it wouldn’t matter. Who could afford it?
Though if one is building the bomb, despite its constitutional protection, people still have the right to require the individual either properly ensure the safety of other people or those peope simply force him to give up said weapon. Personally, I’d just move as far away as possible from the damnable thing.
Whoever though nuclear technology was a smart idea… if they weren’t already dead I’d kick them! Really, really hard!
Or build one. It’s technology that’s over 50 years old. If loonies in the caves of a third-world nation can theoretically pull it off, then a middle class person with access to a good library and workshop should have no problem. I can easily find uranium mines in the US desert - it’s just those pesky Army soldiers blocking my access to it.
There’s all sorts of radioactive fun you can get up to that doesn’t cost TOO much if you know what you’re doing.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,51 … 02,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
There’s a good bit of tritium available for recreational uses here in England (glowy keychains), but it’s restricted in the US afaik.
The problem is that over a long enough timeframe, probability almost demands that one of those incidents will escalate into a nuclear exchange. It only has to happen once.
There’s the example of Stanislav Petrov, who prevented a nuclear war only by disregarding his standing orders after his computer system falsely reported an incoming US attack. We might not get so lucky on the next computer glitch.
Why would that be unconstitutional? The words “well regulated” aren’t in there because they look pretty
What a guy. The man saved the world and most people don’t even know his name.
Has happened 20 known times… I’m sure there’s dozens of classifed incidents that are unknown:
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-is … ar-war.htm
Humans like playing chicken with extinction. :mrgreen:
In any case, we’re still here. Mathematically we should have already nuked ourselves at least half a dozen times, but we didn’t. I doubt we will any time soon - not with ABM technology just around the corner - less than 25 years if they keep up with the advances.
I’d be more worried about space rocks than nukes, since we know that kind of thing happens about once every 50 to 100 millions years - which means we’re in the window of getting one. As of early 2009 we’ve only tracked a handful out of tens of thousands out there, so we may get hit with one without even knowing it (or with only a few days warning). [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB3G0rvCIJc]Fun stuff if it happens with a really big one[/url].
There’s a theory that Mars sucked on one like that, and may have killed it’s oceans and atmosphere. Mars gets another in 50 millions years: Phobos orbit is collapsing.
I’ve compiled a quick summary of the relevant portions of the US Protect Act of 2003, for those who are interested:
http://mangagamer.site11.com/viewtopic. … 4634#p4634
Note that in the Handley case, the judge ruled 2AB are unconstitutional because they lack an obscenity requirement.
Interesting development. Several large online porn sites have recently renamed their Teen subcategory to 18+ Teens. I know it’s just a word and all… but people talked about it. Everyone knew the teen section was produced by people at least 18 years old, but something made the site maintainers and video providers change how they worded it.
They’ve probably decided that even the portrayal of underaged sex could constitute a liability (especially in the view of Canadian and English law). Best to dot your i’s and cross your t’s if it could forestall a lawsuit.
Well, that’s been the case for ages. If you’ve ever operated a real-people porn site, there have always been long lists of do’s and don’ts changing from site to site, country to country, year to year. There’s a lot of regulations about porn and most people outside the business never need to know.
It’s been a long time but even years ago I remember people being careful to put “barely legal” in front of “teens”, and even having the word sixteen on your site somewhere could get you blacklisted.