Canada Should Get Nuclear Weapons

[Dracoria]

That's an internet thing, not every internet majority is true. Just like the percentage of Atheists online is disproportionate to that actual number of Atheists. Yadayada.

No, it's not. Go to Europe, and ask anyone.

Okay, in that case it just tells us why we shouldn't bother listening to Europeans.

[United States of Cascadia]

Anti-Matter bombs?
...

Centuries ago, no one would've considered the possibility of nuclear weapons. Theoretically, antimatter bombs would be very energy-efficient.

No it wouldn't. Antimatter production requires immense amounts of energy, all of which is merely release at the time of the matter-antimatter reaction. That's a net zero gain, and with losses to entropy and other affects you end up with a net minus in terms of energy, a nuke results in a net positive gain.

[Segland]

Centuries ago, no one would've considered the possibility of nuclear weapons. Theoretically, antimatter bombs would be very energy-efficient.

Technically, yes, but I like to think that the militaries of the world have more sense than to build a fail-deadly city-buster.

So do I, but taking lessons from modern history, I doubt they'd be considering the humanitarianism of it.

[Dracoria]

Centuries ago, no one would've considered the possibility of nuclear weapons. Theoretically, antimatter bombs would be very energy-efficient.

Technically, yes, but I like to think that the militaries of the world have more sense than to build a fail-deadly city-buster.

In theory yes. In theory scientists wouldn't play horrifyingly deadly games with a slightly subcritical plutonium sphere, but there's always That Guy.

[Kommeria]

The whole "WMDs" bravo sierra was something Tony Blair said, if I remember correctly.

[Segland]

Centuries ago, no one would've considered the possibility of nuclear weapons. Theoretically, antimatter bombs would be very energy-efficient.

No it wouldn't. Antimatter production requires immense amounts of energy, all of which is merely release at the time of the matter-antimatter reaction. That's a net zero gain, and with losses to entropy and other affects you end up with a net minus in terms of energy, a nuke results in a net positive gain.

That's assuming we don't make any major advances in antimatter science within 100 or 200 years.

[Wisconsin9]

Technically, yes, but I like to think that the militaries of the world have more sense than to build a fail-deadly city-buster.

So do I, but taking lessons from modern history, I doubt they'd be considering the humanitarianism of it.

Humanitarianism doesn't come into it. It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to build something that will destroy everything within a mile if you hit a pothole while moving it.

[Kommeria]

No, it's not. Go to Europe, and ask anyone.

Okay, in that case it just tells us why we shouldn't bother listening to Europeans.

Not their opinions at least.

[United States of The One Percent]

While I'm not a big fan of things the US has done, Iraq was invaded because Hussein was gassing and slaughtering Iraqi civilians... Imperialism had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Plenty of countries gas and slaughter their civilians without risking a US-led invasion. The George W. Bush Administration invaded Iraq for a complex of reasons, some psychological (they tried to kill Daddy, Daddy botched his invasion), some political (we need to look tough after letting Osama escape, we believe despite all the "reality-based" evidence that this will bring democracy to the Middle East and cement US influence in the region) and some economic (oil, more oil). Perhaps historians will sort out all this in the years to come; but they have yet to sort out Vietnam. I'm not holding my breath.

We do know the results: the Great Recession, Iran ascendant, Iraq in tatters and headed for partition, random opportunistic extremist groups filling in the vacuum, hundreds of thousands of lives lost and damaged, trillions of dollars of fortunes pissed away along with an untold amount of sacred honor.

And we do agree that imperialism was the last thing on any US officials mind. Had it been they might have made some kind of plan beyond deploying thousands of trucks to carry away the rose petals they imagined the grateful Iraqis would be throwing at their liberators.

[Segland]

So do I, but taking lessons from modern history, I doubt they'd be considering the humanitarianism of it.

Humanitarianism doesn't come into it. It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to build something that will destroy everything within a mile if you hit a pothole while moving it.

It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to create a weapon that could end up wiping out all life on the planet due to a false alarm

[Wisconsin9]

Humanitarianism doesn't come into it. It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to build something that will destroy everything within a mile if you hit a pothole while moving it.

It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to create a weapon that could end up wiping out all life on the planet due to a false alarm

You're deliberately missing my point.

[United States of Cascadia]

No it wouldn't. Antimatter production requires immense amounts of energy, all of which is merely release at the time of the matter-antimatter reaction. That's a net zero gain, and with losses to entropy and other affects you end up with a net minus in terms of energy, a nuke results in a net positive gain.

That's assuming we don't make any major advances in antimatter science within 100 or 200 years.

No it doesn't, the law of conservation of energy won't allow that to be changed, do you understand basic physics?

[Rob Halfordia]

I'm just gonna ask everyone to look at the title again. Why are we talking about anti matter?

[Kommeria]

Humanitarianism doesn't come into it. It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to build something that will destroy everything within a mile if you hit a pothole while moving it.

It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to create a weapon that could end up wiping out all life on the planet due to a false alarm

Agreed.
We can only wonder how many times NATO and Soviet submarines nearly nuked eachother's homelands over their hide and go seek/search and destroy game.

[Segland]

It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to create a weapon that could end up wiping out all life on the planet due to a false alarm

You're deliberately missing my point.

Your point, if I'm correct, is that the dangers and impracticality of the weapon would discourage any attempt to produce one.

[Dracoria]

I'm just gonna ask everyone to look at the title again. Why are we talking about anti matter?

Because if Canada gets nuclear weapons, the US will have to up the ante in order to inva-err....I mean, in order to advance modern science.

[Rob Halfordia]

I'm just gonna ask everyone to look at the title again. Why are we talking about anti matter?

Because if Canada gets nuclear weapons, the US will have to up the ante in order to inva-err....I mean, in order to advance modern science.

Except now the conversation is unrealistic and impractical. Aside from the idiocy of creating such a weapon, the cost would be exponential. Now, let's get back to the subject, why don't we?

[Wisconsin9]

It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to create a weapon that could end up wiping out all life on the planet due to a false alarm

Agreed.
We can only wonder how many times NATO and Soviet submarines nearly nuked eachother's homelands over their hide and go seek/search and destroy game.

Probably not nearly as many times as you might think. Countries don't tend to put idiots in charge of unimaginably expensive pieces of equipment capable of wiping out a continent.

You're deliberately missing my point.

Your point, if I'm correct, is that the dangers and impracticality of the weapon would discourage any attempt to produce one.

Yes. Nukes may be able to end the world, but at least they only end the world when they're told to do so, instead of when there's a small earthquake.

[Rob Halfordia]

Agreed.
We can only wonder how many times NATO and Soviet submarines nearly nuked eachother's homelands over their hide and go seek/search and destroy game.

Probably not nearly as many times as you might think. Countries don't tend to put idiots in charge of unimaginably expensive pieces of equipment capable of wiping out a continent.

Your point, if I'm correct, is that the dangers and impracticality of the weapon would discourage any attempt to produce one.

Yes. Nukes may be able to end the world, but at least they only end the world when they're told to do so, instead of when there's a small earthquake.

You don't know anything about anti matter.

[Wisconsin9]

Probably not nearly as many times as you might think. Countries don't tend to put idiots in charge of unimaginably expensive pieces of equipment capable of wiping out a continent.


Yes. Nukes may be able to end the world, but at least they only end the world when they're told to do so, instead of when there's a small earthquake.

You don't know anything about anti matter.

I know that it's extremely difficult to contain, and that when it comes into contact with regular matter it blows up.

[Segland]

Your point, if I'm correct, is that the dangers and impracticality of the weapon would discourage any attempt to produce one.

Yes. Nukes may be able to end the world, but at least they only end the world when they're told to do so, instead of when there's a small earthquake.

What about satellites armed with antimatter projectiles -- wait, even I see the absurdity of that.

[Rob Halfordia]

You don't know anything about anti matter.

I know that it's extremely difficult to contain, and that when it comes into contact with regular matter it blows up.

But do you know that you would need a truckload of the stuff to do the damage you are imagining?

[Dracoria]

Because if Canada gets nuclear weapons, the US will have to up the ante in order to inva-err....I mean, in order to advance modern science.

Except now the conversation is unrealistic and impractical. Aside from the idiocy of creating such a weapon, the cost would be exponential. Now, let's get back to the subject, why don't we?

The subject is about as realistic as antimatter weaponry. Maybe less.

[Rob Halfordia]

Except now the conversation is unrealistic and impractical. Aside from the idiocy of creating such a weapon, the cost would be exponential. Now, let's get back to the subject, why don't we?

The subject is about as realistic as antimatter weaponry. Maybe less.

I think it's less.

[Blakk Metal]

Humanitarianism doesn't come into it. It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to build something that will destroy everything within a mile if you hit a pothole while moving it.

It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to create a weapon that could end up wiping out all life on the planet due to a false alarm

Nuclear weapons are like chemical weapons, they have a reputation so bad they're unusable, even in total war.