- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Simple question:
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
Simple question:
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
Simple question:
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
Simple question:
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
Simple question:
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
Simple question:
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
Why the [RIP] tag? Meant to post some pics of dead kids to further the political nonsense? It's time to bust out the abomb pics? What, are we running out of disabled dying vets to pump this week's message?
It means this thread needs to be killed because i ****ed up the poll part
No, people kill people! Amirite?
Serious answer: Yes, nuclear weapons kill people, but, in order for them to kill people, other people have to use them. In other words, like guns, they don't act on their own (unless there's some extreme malfunction). On the contrary, in order to do anything at all, nukes have to be MADE to act by human beings or machines/computers created by human beings.
Now, those facts can have many implications and raise a lot of questions. Is it okay to have nukes if we just ensure that those around them are responsible? What should we do to make sure those with access to nukes act responsibly? Should we get rid of nukes out of fear people won't act responsibility? And so on. The answers to those questions depends on who you ask.
Figured it was something like that.
Look, this really just isn't a good comparison, as has been pointed out many times.
Nuclear bombs are strategic weapons systems, with a large-scale area effect and the potential to affect people many miles away from the blast radius via fallout or electromagnetic pulse or other effects. It is impossible to use a nuke to target an individual enemy; it is all but impossible to maintain or use nuclear weapons without a supporting organization of thousands of people; it is all but impossible to use a nuke without inflicting thousands or millions of injuries and deaths including civilian "collateral damage". Imagining a legitimate purpose for nukes other than destroying other nations and their civilian populations is a stretch.
Guns, by comparison, are personal weapons that are capable of targeting individual enemies and are not typically area-effect weapons. They can be used by an individual for legitimate purposes such as self-defense and sport. They do not require a massive infrastructure for maintenance and deployment.
It is literally a firecrackers vs atom-bombs comparison that makes apples and oranges look identical.
It's not a good comparison for the entirety of the gun issue for the reasons you stated among others. However, it is a good comparison for specific similarities that nuclear weapons and guns have. For example, both guns and nukes are inanimate weapons. One of the most common pro-gun arguments is that because guns are inanimate, they, in and of themselves, aren't a danger to the population. Since nukes are also inanimate weapons, asking if those inanimate weapons "kill people" is a means of determining how people feel about the danger of inanimate objects by analogy and without the emotion involved in gun debates. Even though they aren't weapons, the same limited comparison could be made with other inanimate objects like cars, airplanes and so on.Figured it was something like that.
Look, this really just isn't a good comparison, as has been pointed out many times.
Nuclear bombs are strategic weapons systems, with a large-scale area effect and the potential to affect people many miles away from the blast radius via fallout or electromagnetic pulse or other effects. It is impossible to use a nuke to target an individual enemy; it is all but impossible to maintain or use nuclear weapons without a supporting organization of thousands of people; it is all but impossible to use a nuke without inflicting thousands or millions of injuries and deaths including civilian "collateral damage". Imagining a legitimate purpose for nukes other than destroying other nations and their civilian populations is a stretch.
Guns, by comparison, are personal weapons that are capable of targeting individual enemies and are not typically area-effect weapons. They can be used by an individual for legitimate purposes such as self-defense and sport. They do not require a massive infrastructure for maintenance and deployment.
It is literally a firecrackers vs atom-bombs comparison that makes apples and oranges look identical.
oh my my my
It's not a good comparison for the entirety of the gun issue for the reasons you stated among others. However, it is a good comparison for specific similarities that nuclear weapons and guns have. For example, both guns and nukes are inanimate weapons. One of the most common pro-gun arguments is that because guns are inanimate, they, in and of themselves, aren't a danger to the population. Since nukes are also inanimate weapons, asking if those inanimate weapons "kill people" is a means of determining how people feel about the danger of inanimate objects by analogy and without the emotion involved in gun debates. Even though they aren't weapons, the same limited comparison could be made with other inanimate objects like cars, airplanes and so on.
It's also a good limited comparison in a way that I suspect TDS didn't mean to make. The safe use of guns and nuclear weapons both depend on the responsibility of human beings. Therefore, in both cases, we have to ask ourselves, "Can we trust humans to act responsibly enough to have the weapons?" One of the most common anti-gun arguments is that people aren't responsible enough to have weapons. Since nukes also require people to act responsibly, asking if its okay for countries to have nukes would be a way of determining how people feel about the role of responsibility in owning weapons by analogy and without the emotion involved in gun debates.
No analogy is perfect, but perfect comparisons are not the function of analogies. People use them to draw limited comparisons between specific aspects of different ideas.