orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/17/86)
> > Do you mean to say you'd be perfectly happy to see Qaddhafi > > with nuclear reactors and Libya swarming with nuclear scientists and > > engineers? Or Khomeini or Assad or your favorite mad dictator? > > Richard Carnes > Frankly I'd rather that they use nuclear explosives than conventional > ones. Nuclear explosives are far larger, easier to detect, expensive, > and less likely to go off correctly, than conventional explosives. > Furthermore, a lot of conventional explosives is needed to set off > a nuclear explosive, thus further depleting terrorist resources. > > And if they do use it we have the perfect excuse for blowing them > off the map. (:-> > > Kenneth Ng: This illustrates perfectly the ludicrous nature of some pro-nukers ignorance of ecology or the very dangerous effects of nuclear bombs or nuclear wastes. Sure, nuclear bombs are exactly like conventional bombs if you wish to ignore total destructive capacity (as we all know just *one* very small bomb by today's standards blew up the entire city of Hiroshima), heat effects, the possibility of starting a firestorm, radioactive fallout and EMP effects. (It has been estimated that just one moderately sized nuclear explosion above St. Louis could cause an EMP effect which would wipe out computers over 70% of the US- see "Fate of the Earth" by Jonathan Schell for details. His info comes from a report by the Office of Technology Assessment) It sounds like Kenneth still lives in the days when the AEC assured everyone that fallout would never fall to Earth, that strontium-90 was no problem since it only penetrated half an inch, before anyone even *knew* there was such a thing as an EMP effect,etc,etc,etc. Statements like the above hardly enhance Kenneth's credibility with any thinking person. tim sevener whuxn!orb
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) (07/24/86)
>> > Do you mean to say you'd be perfectly happy to see Qaddhafi >> > with nuclear reactors... >> > Richard Carnes >> Frankly I'd rather that they use nuclear explosives than conventional >> ones. Nuclear explosives are far larger, easier to detect, expensive, >> and less likely to go off correctly, than conventional explosives. >> Furthermore, a lot of conventional explosives is needed to set off >> a nuclear explosive, thus further depleting terrorist resources. >> >> And if they do use it we have the perfect excuse for blowing them >> off the map. (:-> >> >> Kenneth Ng: In article <1178@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > This illustrates perfectly the ludicrous nature of some pro-nukers > ignorance of ecology or the very dangerous effects of nuclear bombs > or nuclear wastes. This illustrates perfectly the ludicrous nature of the knee-jerk reaction of some anti-nukers when confronted with a tongue-in-cheek invitation to think. Pro-nukers know VERY WELL the dangerous effects of nuclear bombs and nuclear wastes--they just don't have a one-track panic button. In the pro-nukers mind, there are simply many other worse (and more likely) things to fear, and the risks of doing something risky are to be weighed against, of all things, the benefits. > [diatribe on the fearsomeness of nuclear bombs deleted] > > It sounds like Kenneth still lives in the days when the AEC assured > everyone that fallout would never fall to Earth, that strontium-90 > was no problem since it only penetrated half an inch, before anyone > even *knew* there was such a thing as an EMP effect,etc,etc,etc. Of course it sounds like that to you. That doesn't mean it's so. > Statements like the above hardly enhance Kenneth's credibility with > any thinking person. On the contrary, I found it quite refreshing to wonder whether involving Libya in the MAD doctrine would effectively put a stop to their warmongering. MAD has certainly kept the superpowers from any direct hostilities since World War II. (Hmm. Maybe we ought to GIVE them nuclear weapons outright. Now THAT's an idea to wrap your hypothalamus around... :-) :-) :-) Well, perhaps it just proves I'm not a Thinking Person. Apparently a Thinking Person must meditate ONLY on the dangers of nuclear power, and I don't think I qualify. (Maybe that's why I put solar collectors on my roof... :-) Larry Wall sdcrdcf!lwall P.S. Have you ever noticed that a smiley face upside-down looks a little bit like a mushroom cloud? Talk about backward-masking...