MSC

If black holes slowly loss mass over time; is there a point where they stop being black holes and devolve into something more like a neutron star? https://news.ubc.ca/2024/04/05/new-gravitational-wave-signal-neutron-stars-and-black-holes/#:~:text=The 'mass gap'%2C spanning,theory than an empty gap. If so; would that explain the potential existence of objects falling within the mass gap between small black holes and neutrons stars? Objects that may have been detected in gravitational wave data? Incredibly old ex-black holes? Dying Holes. If there is a singularity at the center of a black hole, a point of near infinite density, would that same point also be a point of near infinite pressure? All that mass trying to explode outward while the gravitational force of itself keeps everything packed in. Extra question; is the idea a theory or a hypothesis? Explain that one like I'm 5.

Not sure me or Japan would agree. There is also the trichotomy of pain, suffering and harm to think about. So there is a question of whether or not the existence of nuclear weapons harms us, even if not currently causing us objective pain. Here is a thought experiment; There is a bank called the Gun to your head Bank. Inside the bank is a system of automatic turrets that only the bank manager can control. The policies are that if anyone tries to rob the bank, the manager will initiate the turrets and they will kill everyone in the bank. If a member of staff tries to quit or is otherwise being civilly disobedient, the manager will initiate the turrets. If a customer takes issue with the banks practice or believe the bank manager is stealing money from the account, the manager will initiate the turrets. You get the idea. This bank, is the world under the threat of nuclear weapons. Even if the manager says he is going to get rid of these extreme policies but keeps the turrets in place, the implication that they could be used thusly, anytime, still exists and you cannot guarentee that a new bank manager won't be even worse. So do I think people are banging their heads against the wall? No. Do I think we all have guns to our heads? Yes.

And people can stop moving the goalposts on this too; deterrence ought to mean more than just their use, if it doesn't deter their creation, then eventually they will be used. Nothing is being deterred just delayed. The detterence comes after you use them a bunch, then people forget how bad it was until people are practically foaming at the mouth at the thought of keeping them around and it makes me a little bit sick to be honest. Take issue all you like; if the bombs had went off where your nation was you'd likely feel differently. But because it happened to the civilians of another country/race to you it just doesn't matter? It was ww2 and most of the world was starving, everyone suffered, but it was winding down, they were about to surrender and then the USA released the most cowardly double sucker punch of all time with the highest kill count and for what? A few points scored on a naval base wow and only tons of innocent civilians and two cities as collateral damage? Wow, amazing. This debate is starting to get really boring. Crimes carried out by millitaries need to punish the people giving the orders and carrying them out. Whichever side. Can we all just agree that civilian casualties suck and are unfair without having arguments that amount to "What colour or culture were they? Tell me that so i can decide how much I care." Also where did OP go? Here we are busting our butts having it out and they've gone AWOL!

That's not the part I was calling statistically false. Nuclear weapons have not in anyway deterred the continued manufacturing and testing of nuclear weapons and there are more countries without them who have similarly not been overrun by the powers that do have them so why does anyone need them? It's a circular argument; "Oh we need Nuclear weapons... because nuclear weapons exists, and because nuclear weapons exist.... we need nuclear weapons." As for the second claim you made, that it is letting your guard down to get rid of nuclear weapons, there is only one way to test that out. Get people do disarm and see what happens. Now it's for science and ethics. Great job that's a wrap. See Switzerland. Ukraine didn't get invaded by Russia because it doesn't have nukes, it got invaded by Russia because it used to be part of the Soviet union and the soviet union being made anew is Putins idea of a wet dream.

Only just noticed that there was a mistake. I meant to say emotional phenomenology is fun. Phenomenology is an interesting one because you can study a lot through that lens. Phenomenology of cooking or even hyper specific stuff like The phenomenology of the ghost in literature. One of the few essays I have had to translate myself into English, was originally in Spanish that one.

It must be related to that weird feeling I get of remorse when I am hungry and remember a random meal from the past and wishing I had eaten it all then, as if that would somehow lead to me feeling less hungry now. Emotional phenomenology is fine. I think that I am feeling and I feel that I am thinking.

The caveat is that nobody has used them against another country but they still are used; it seems like every other year there is a nuclear weapons test going on somewhere in the world and I wonder what the cumalative effect of a nuclear weapons test every other year for few centuries would be. It doesn't change the fact that before long there will be some madman who gets their hands on nukes and isn't dettered from using them, then all arguments in favour of their continued use and not taking as fast of a crawl to global zero as possible, will be moot. There are currently as of January 2023 approximately 12,500 nuclear war heads worldwide that we know of. How many of these going off would it take to trigger a full scale nuclear war and how many need to be used to cause a nuclear winter and irradiating most of the planet? When is the expiration date of effective deterrence of nuclear weapons? No, I'd be more worried about your moral compass if you had no capacity to suffer/desire to avoid it, as then you'd be incapable of empathising with the suffering of others.

Statistically false; most countries don't have nuclear weapons, getting nuclear weapons reduces national security by making a country a target for countries that do have them and because of that fact, nuclear weapons are ineffective and dettering countries that don't have them, from building them. A simple probabiltiy calculation makes it all but certain that the more countries that have them over long periods of time would suggest that nuclear war is inevitable. The majority of nations with nuclear weapons are either ex empires or new economic empires. When a nuclear power engages in conventional warfare with a non nuclear power, more often than not the threat of a nuclear strike renders the non nuclear power completely incapable of fighting the nuclear power on equal footings as they can only defend their territory and cannot strike their aggressors in their home. At this point; it seems like most nuclear powers only have them because they fear retribution from the countries that they have exploited or it is a country that is sick of being exploited or is attempting to keep it's form of human rights violating governance in power. This is a much stronger argument and is good food for thought. Gonna ponder this one a lot. I don't think it would be fair to say that if you were against the bombing you were for the torture and inhumane treatment. I'm against torture, inhumane treatment and civilian casualties in war. Whether we are discussing the Japanese military torturing POWs and civilians in the places they occupied or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I view them all as war crimes that ought to be tried seperately in a court of law. However once the USA was the only nuclear capable power, it doesn't surprise me no one was in any rush to have the allies tried for any warcrimes they may have committed and that's something I'll need to research before I make any solid claims one way or the other in that regard. But yeah, good comment. +1 Strong point, this is actually where I'd point in explaining why schoolyard politics is just not a good comparison for the simpleat reason, getting the bad actors to de-escalate and disarm and even the "good" actors to do the same because there is no parent, teacher etc to turn to. But I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Has anyone tried calling Putins mother?

Do you want the list of why it really isn't or can you think of that list yourself? No, I don't and it's a complete false equivalency and my views on nuclear weapons shouldn't be used to infer what my moral inclinations are in completely different subjects. I'm not a pacifist, I don't suffer bullies, I believe violence in defence isn't just permissable it is a categorical imperative and all the strawmen about how I must view other subjects and debates just because you know my stance on this one is a waste of all of our time. Honestly I haven't been able to dignify this with a response for two days because.... well I mean look at it. @swansont why don't you poke holes in this one? Why do I even have to explain why a bully taking lunch money is different from countries threatening each other with nukes or setting them off? That's a bottom of the barrel argument right there. On A) Whether or not the bombing of Japan was needed to end the war and B) Whether or not the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons is justified and morally permissable.

Any clues? I was thinking early turkey tail but someone with more experience with turkey tail said it isn't because the underside of early turkey tail is always white Image number 4 is a different tree with earlier stage growth

Then what is your position? I am genuinely interested to know. You did poke a few holes for sure and I appreciated it because it does help me figure out how to improve my position and you absolutely provided a lot of good prompting for research, as has MigL. Sorry I can get caught up in the spirit of debate quite a bit but hey, at least I don't get as heated or assholish as I used to get when I first came onto this forum.

Well I appreciate you and your passion also. Ehrfucht vom der leben! I've just never been one to ignore the elephant in the room, hence my profile pic! You should have a read of Schwietzers declaration of conscience too, you'd appreciate it. There is also an article called Blacklisting Schweitzer by Laurence S Wittner that details a lot of what was being done collaboratively in the late 1950s and early 60s to sway public opinion against nuclear testing that I think would interest you, if you've not already read it of course! Global zero will probably never happen in our lifetimes but the groundwork has been laid and if people don't pick up the torch, then and only then is it an impossible goal. I'm 30! I've still got a few good years of naivete left in me I think. Regimes rise and fall, Putin, Kim and Khamenei are all mortal men with an expiration date, opinions and policies change. You are old enough to know that the world does in fact change as you've lived through more of those changes than I have. But hey, I'm more than happy to steelman your points. Let's say for the sake of argument, that the dismantling of the global nuclear deterrence apparatus is impossible. I don't think it is but for the sake of argument I'll run with it for a tick. Without people actively fighting against it, it could be argued that our very presence as global zero advocates tempers humanities worst inclinations and decelerates the approach to midnight, while actively accelerating the technogical advancement of defensive technologies. Big stick meets big shield. Mass murder of non-combatants by nuclear weapon = Morally acceptable? Extortion and blackmail of criminals and psychopaths to stave off a nuclear apocalypse = Morally reprehensible? How is the latter not the lesser of two evils in your mind? MigL I respect you as a person I really do but your arguments aren't very strong or convincing to be honest, at least not to me. The reason being that I've read so much on this subject that you're not going to be able to dismantle it all and convince me otherwise with just a few paragraphs. It isn't even my arguments you need to dismantle but the arguments made by people who have been making these arguments decades before I was even born. Like it or not it's the truth. Same goes for @swansont and the arguments he's made, they just aren't very strong or convincing and that isn't on me but on you guys. I'm not the type to listen to what amounts to "because I said so.", I'm sorry but that's just not going to happen. Nobody is suggesting that anyone should let their guard down. Great so now that songs gonna be stuck in my head for a week. Thanks Dim.

As a massive Dr Who fan, this I can appreciate! Will watch for sure thank you!

I'm game! Swansont and MigL need to do a deep dive into Farscape lol

If you start to believe the possible to be impossible, you'll never take steps to achieve what may be achievable. - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-a-world-without-nuclear-weapons-really-possible/ That's me all done with this topic for today. Need sleep. Goodnight MigL.

@J.C.MacSwell I apologise if it felt like that was an outburst directed at you. It genuinely wasn't. I'm just frustrated with RL at the moment and not being taken seriously there. It's also late, my back hurts like hell and I've done nothing but mulch raspberry bushes all day. My frustrations are with humanity in general, not anybody here personally and I make these arguments here because this is the only group I trust to follow and understand. I actually didn't. I said drop a nuke on Raffah, which I mispelled, its Rafah and it's the city in southern Gaza the Palestinians are being funneled into. You and me both brother, you and me both. I don't have confidence in any country that has them. I don't want Iran, Israel, Russia, China, the USA or any country to have them. 90 seconds to midnight and not because Iran has nuclear weapons is too close for any comfort or confidence tbh.

Oh for sure, so choosing the greater evil definitely wouldn't. I'm still convinced the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was definitely the greater evil because it was literal overkill and as many here have mentioned, they were about to surrender anyway and Trumans real motivation for dropping the A-bombs was to intimidate the Russians. - https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/08/07/atomic-bombing-japan-not-necessary/#:~:text=“Although the bombs did force,%2C unnecessary”%2C he wrote. - excerpt from David Lilienthals diary entry marked "Meeting with the President July 21, 1948, 4:00 to 4:15 p.m." Link to full entry. It should be noted that while Truman defended the decision to drop the a-bombs in public, there is evidence to suggest that his decision deeply troubled him and that he seemed to be suffering from signs of stress and trauma, there is even suggestions that he didn't even realise Hiroshima wasn't as large of a military base as he thought and was shocked and appalled by how many civilians were killed in the blast. Apologies if I'm coming across as overly polemic, I just take this subject very seriously and want to do it justice. I'm spending hours upon hours of research on almost every reply, except my shorter ones during the work day and honestly I'll not stop debating it until the day I die if I have to. Weapons of mass destruction never bring true peace or security. They never have the effect you want until you use them and at that point you are guilty of mass murder, plain and simple and I think it is a betrayal of humanity to justify for a military something that would land us all in jail for the rest of our lives if we did something like nuke a city. The saving the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians is a terrible justification also, soldiers sign up to fight knowing they may die. The atrocities committed by the japanese military were committed only by the japanese military. The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were blameless. Historians agree it wasn't necessary, Truman seemed to privately regret it, Oppenheimer blamed himself completely, the American government admitted it didn't need to happen to end the war, one of the most influential ethicists of the time won a nobel peace prize for condemning it and the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and he is still regarded as highly influential in the field of environmental ethics to this day. What more will people need to convince them? Nuclear winter for 1000 years? All of us here and our planet, our home, have been born and raised under the threat of the mushroom cloud with the nuclear gun pointed at all of our heads. For all of our claims of being the most intelligent species on the planet, we're the only species dumb enough to threaten our own home and existence in such a brutal and violent way. Achieving fission and fusion and using it for weapons and actually using those weapons doesn't prove we are the most intelligent at all, it proves we are the most violent and indeed the most selfish. Better to snuff out just ourselves than to doom so many other species of plant and animal too.

Nuclear medicine too. In the context of this post I'm against nuclear weapons explicitly. Nuclear power, medicine, propulsion etc I'm fine with when due caution and safety measures are used. Good point. You however, didn't answer my "what if you were in Truman's shoes." Question. I've also made many more points than you are choosing to address (which I get because you're busy with your moderation duties and real life but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed that there isn't enough time in the day to discuss it all. Why wouldn't you have the stomach for it, if it's the right thing to do? Hume would have potentially argued that the sentiment in your statement should perhaps tell you something about your true moral inclinations on the matter. (Don't misconstrue that as an insult, as I'm suggesting you're actually much more ethical than you think you are by making such a statement.) Is it that you wouldn't have the stomach for it or deep down you feel you shouldn't have the stomach for it? Why did Truman have the stomach to do it? Again, we haven't spoken about Truman nearly enough and I feel talking about him is much more on topic than getting into dicussions over which types of weapon are worse than others. I'm afraid of both and to not be afraid of both would likely lead to carelessness in the transportation of such. I honestly couldn't tell you what I would be more afraid of without actually performing the task. Would be fearful and worried either way, why quantify it? A thought occurs to me, say Netanyahu dropped a Nuke on Raffah tomorrow, and used the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as justification for why it's okay to wipe a city of mostly non-combatants from the face of the earth. How would people feel about that? Apples and oranges I know but what if? - from the link I posted earlier. @MigLyou did mention Iran, so what do you think about the above excerpt? Kind of seems like the current state of affairs in Iran was a problem of America's own making to me.

Because you asked what makes depleted uranium (and by extension nuclear and radiological weapons) different from conventional weapons. Yes both have waste products, but I feel like you're comparing apples to oranges a bit. Radioactive materials are far more hazardous than the materials used to make conventional weapons in most cases (I'd agree where biological and chemical weapons are concerned to be fair) and if you are going to claim that they are similarly hazardous, you'll need to provide evidence to back up the claim. I think the difference is that governments are more likely to listen and address public concerns where nuclear energy is concerned than they are where fossil fuels are concerned.

Is it? I hear about much more concern these days over fossil fuel use than nuclear waste, but again the concern is largely ignored by governments. Will respond better later, working. This is a good conversation though! Thanks for having it with me. Not to mention this stick is just as likely to burn the hand that wields it as it is to burn the person being hit with it.

I just wish I knew of an effective way to consistently persuade others if what is actually true. Facts and evidence just don't seem to do it. God damn backfire effect.

Neither would I, although admittedly at a smaller scale. I would be interested in seeing the research on that. The OP asked why the use of nuclear weapons was necessary to end the war, the war may have been going on but we've already covered that so too were peace talks, negotiations for surrender and an internal desire to surrender in Japan which knew it was being badly beaten and was about to have a new front opened onto it via the Russians. As for your question about depleted uranium; Does making bullets or firebombs produce nuclear waste? Which if not handled or stored properly does its own damage to ecosystems without any requirement for a weapon to be fired or detonated at all. Enriching plutonium and uranium does. Reprocessing nuclear weapons does. Making bullets, grenades, napalm and other conventional weapons does not (unless the manufacturing facilities are powered by nuclear energy of course). +1! - Stanford encylopedia of philosophy Put this here so people understand what is meant by categorical imperative. Putting this here so we can all evaluate the man who made the decision to drop the bombs in the first place. We really need to talk about Truman more. I mean look at this shit; @swansont and @MigL time for a serious question. It's the summer of 1945. Truman isn't president, you are. Will you drop the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Let's move on from whether or not dropping the bombs was right or wrong; Was Truman specifically qualified to decide that it was the right thing to do? Is anyone qualified to make that decision?

My response would be to first state that my ideal is no war, no nuclear weapons or conventional warfare of any kind, is always preferable. But that my ideal is an impossible goal based on what I know of human nature and the lack of control or say that the majority people have in determining how militaries choose to fight those wars. It's not that I find conventional weapons acceptable, just less bad. For a simple reason, the firebombing of Tokyo didn't release radioactive material 50 miles up into the atmosphere and had way less long-term effects on the environment nor longterm genetic damage and radiation poisoning that caused cancer, fetal abnormalities etc. While I understand the residual radiation of those bombs had a relatively short half-life, today we have a number of different types of nuclear and radioactive weapons to be concerned about. Neutron bombs have a much higher radiactive yield, some nuclear weapons have a vastly higher explosive yield, strategically placed dirty bombs in the right (or wrong depending on how you look at it) weather conditions could give radiation poisoning to many more than the intended target and setting off numerous nuclear bombs could bring on a nuclear winter, send radiactive material all over the globe and cause massive amounts of harm to humans, animals and plant life for generations to come. If the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima had a similar radioactive yield as the Chernobyl disaster, they'd have likely remained uninhabitable for much much longer than they did. Genuinely, if I was forced to choose between being burned alive or being given a lethal dose of radiation, I'd pick being burned alive. It's quicker. I wouldn't wish death by radiation poisoning on my worst enemy and I cried like a baby watching Dr Daniel Jackson dying of radiation poisoning in Stargate and was highly disturbed just listening to him describe what he knew was going to happen to him. I was 7 years old when I watched that for the first of many times, and it's one of my strongest memories. I'm going to end by sharing Albert Schweitzers Declaration of Conscience. @MigL I would really appreciate it if you especially would read this. You don't have to agree with it but it did win the Nobel peace prize in 1957 and I believe it is an extremely powerful argument against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I'd also like to add that if a nuclear or radiological weapon was used where any of you are and if we lost any of you to that, I'd mourn you deeply and weep for humanity far more than I already do. I mean I'd mourn your deaths by any means but that way would leave me the most choked. I hope you all die old and peacefully with loved ones by your side and a feeling of serenity looking back at a life well lived.

True, but there is a point I think where there is a deterrent and there is going overboard. Is the nuclear bomb drop equivalent to being fined $1000 for stealing $100 or being fined $1billion for stealing $100? I do actually feel a little conflicted, mostly because there is no way for us now to know whether or not Japan would become hostile again in the future after the war, if the bombs hadn't been dropped and their surrender was secured by lesser means. One thing we can probably both agree on; is that today, there is the deterrent of mutually assured destruction to deter even using WMDs because more than one country now has them. America didn't have to worry about that when it bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For example we could never get Russia to do a Japan like 180 and cease hostilities in Ukraine by dropping some nukes on them, because they'll just use theirs too. I personally still don't agree with the use of the A-Bombs on Japan, but it happened, can't change that and it has definitely deterred Japan from engaging in the behaviours and atrocities it committed during WWII. No doubt about that. From there I think we can agree to disagree on whether or not it should have been done.

This is why I prefer talking with folk here. It's easier to respect people who are more intelligent than me. It's probably my fault for getting facebook again but a prospective employer wanted to see a fb account before committing to hiring me. Which I'm now gonna just assume is an employment red flag.