dimreepr

Sometimes even the simplest why can trigger a greater understanding.

In case you miss the point.

And why he is so angry at being corrected? No one can know everything, so I welcome being shown why I’m wrong; how else do we learn? I can’t understand why people, such as Ant, consider assumption supersedes evidence; or why it matters so much?

Only hydrogen and helium existed pre stars, all other elements are created in stars. Edit/ and helium. http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Just-Elemental/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/How-elements-are-formed

When he replaces an amputees severed arm/leg then I'll believe, otherwise it's just coincidence or medicine.

I would never suggest aliens or ET life doesn’t exist, but that seems to be a huge amount of energy to spend on a postcard.

Not really, just ask yourself, when was god’s last miracle?

Then what's the point of religion?

I can’t see the point in starting this thread; “as no matter what is discussed here” will alter nothing that is recognised as real or “mumbo jumbo”. But if I were rich I wouldn’t like to think my gold was stored, rather than usefully distributed. Even if some nut job predicted its demise.

“Then, he zeroed in on his research about gay marriage. He said: “In recent time I found that gay marriage,which is homosexuality and lesbianism, is eating deep into the fabric of our human nature all over the world and this was why nations of Sodom and Gomora were destroyed by God because they were into gay practice. That is, a man marrying another man and a woman marrying another woman.” I think I have zeroed in on the problem; he studied the bible far more than his physics text books.

Education is no defence against wilful ignorance or a spiteful nature.

If we ignore the physics then nothing, otherwise we'd all be floating in space.

When viewed in context it's clear to me but you seem to be struggling.

How? When there are only three countries it would be much easier to negotiate a nuke by nuke reduction and over time the numbers could reach a critical point where the maintenance would seem pointless so the deactivation would accelerate to the point that the threat is meaningless for almost all.

Surprisingly, Harold Squared has basically answered for me but to add. Whether they would or not depends on many things and falls within a bell curve and so maybe they would and maybe they wouldn’t. The point is there is no data, because the only time nukes have been used is when no one else had them, so we have no idea if we are safer with nukes or without them; especially when considered on a country by country basis. And when considered on that basis I only see a legitimate argument for three countries to maintain a nuclear arsenal; America, Russia and China basically because they would cancel each other out politically and let’s face it they’re the only counties that can afford to maintain a significant arsenal.

Indeed but I can’t control the answer/s. Edit...I can lead but I can't force anyone to follow.

My anti-polar bear fence has been 100% successful, yet my Canadian cousin’s fence fails every time. Would the Ukraine have been safe with a nuclear arsenal? My guess, given the way Putin attacked, is no.

Yes but they would/could only jam an expected signal. Indeed but who or what suggests they didn’t?

Because the bomb exploded where the enemy said it would. Didn't they have radio? Good post Ten oz another +1.

That wasn’t my intention when I started this thread but I can’t decide the direction/focus of the discussion.

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” But when that stone can kill untold numbers shouldn’t he who thinks ,or pretends, he is without sin, be restrained?

Whilst I agree instant communication (for all) is a modern phenomenon. The location of the 2nd drop could be established almost instantly to the relevant authorities along with threats; the wider populace could have been informed by other means and even if a further demonstration was needed, innocents wouldn’t have had to suffer.

All that was needed to demonstrate repeatability was to communicate the location of the 2nd (to all), a few minutes before (whatever the target), and just threaten that Nagasaki, or other, would be next.

But since the 1st demonstration was so conclusive at Hiroshima the only legitimate reason to drop the 2nd was to demonstrate that the 1st could be repeated; why then choose a city of innocents doing as they're told?

And Nagasaki?