Well... you're certainly a ray of sunshine.

If I survived a nuclear bomb and could never get a cup of coffee afterwards, I would slit my throat.

Lost me at the first line of the description “A nuclear bomb is the most devastating explosion ever created”…only by man….and only so far.
There are larger more devastating explosions all the time…volcanoes and meteors for instance. Both have dwarfed the largest nuclear weapons. The explosion that created the moon reshaped the entire planet.

I love the idea of ensuring your thermo-nuclear bomb is "safe".

You sound like a fatalist.... in reality, fires from nuclear bombs should burn off a lot of the methane some day.

Never bring a pitchfork to a supernatural nuclear bomb fight.

Your video, What Does a Nuclear Bomb Explosion Feel Like?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Fair point. I barely consider reactors that need control rods as a legitimate design, there are much better ways to build a reactor that doesn't need to depend on such things for safety. Basic design using a molten salt core should be more than enough, and in any case none of them are anywhere near the chain reaction that would be in a nuclear bomb.

Your video, If You Detonated a Nuclear Bomb In The Marianas Trench, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Jeez, I just watched The Coming War with China (which partially documents US atrocities with nuclear bomb testing on people in Micronesia and subsequent coverup/propaganda) and now I have to see this. On top of that we have an orange gorilla who actually fucking said that he wants an arms race. Good time to be paranoid; everyone keeps saying 2016 was the worst year - well it might not get any better for a good while.

The fact the gun lobby won't let the CDC do it's job and collect data on gun violence just shows how insane political right is.

Then the right is blaming ISIS... the idiot pledged allegiance to ISIS and Hezbollah, even though they are enemies of each other. He clearly just had an issue with gays, and was using faith as an excuse. Most of the mass shootings in the US aren't done by Muslims in an act of terrorism, they are done by crazy people who have unfiltered access to guns.

I'd be fine if we don't close the gun show loophole or don't ban people from buying assault weapons, for now, so long as we first at least let the CDC get back to doing its job and collect data on gun violence. Then explore it in a few years of data collection to see what measures would be helpful. The fact the right refuses to let that happen must tell you that they know what the data will show, that some loopholes need closed.

And yes, if you are on the federal no flight list (and I haven't seen that this shooter was on such a list, just investigated twice), then you should certainly be delayed in getting a gun. That should be a huge red flag. You should then be told why you were denied and then have a right to argue for the right to own a gun and/or get off the no flight list. It should be a clear process to make such an application, and shouldn't require a lawyer. But odds are that most people on the no fly list aren't there for search history, or library records, but most are on the no fly list undoubtedly for far better reasons.

I'll fight to retain the right for most Americans to own a gun. Both a hand gun for personal home defense, and hunting rifles and the like. However if you are in a situation that requires an AR-15 to defend yourself, you are way over your head.... and don't give me some bull shit about protecting yourself from the government, remember how well having even more powerful weapons and training did for the people in Waco. Where do people who argue that those should be sold without restriction want to draw the line (and to be clear, I'm not arguing against the right to own one necessarily, but I am against buying it without restrictions, for a smaller wait time than it would take to buy a handgun)? Do we let people buy a bazooka? A surface to air missile launcher? A nuclear bomb? Where do you draw the line on putting restrictions, or at least a wait time on weapons of mass harm?

It's not quite true to say it would take thousands of years to reach our nearest star. If only people weren't pussies about the small matter of exploding hundreds of nuclear bombs in the atmosphere, we could use technology that existed in the fifties to accelerate spacecraft to as much as a tenth of light speed. Proxima Centauri in a matter of decades, no problem.

There's no reason to actually do that; nothing to be learned, nothing to gain in terms of technology or resource exploitation or potential for the future, but god damn it, it would be cool.

That is stupid. Your concept is flawed on so many levels.



Besides, it's like using a nuclear bomb to swat a fly.

If it were a public figure or an elected official, I wouldn't have a problem at all with them being fired.

I'm not sure if that TED talk example fits exactly. She was a PR manager right? For someone in the PR biz, that was just monumentally stupid thing to say and someone in PR should know better so I find it hard to have sympathy for someone in that case.

But yeah, it's a blurry line to be sure. For me it's a very potent example of why direct democracy isn't always great and why it's a good thing that we elect individuals to make decisions for us to counter the mob with pitchforks mentality that large groups of people tend to have.

Could you imagine if we put EVERYTHING to a popular vote? Sure some things might become more progressive, but then crap like this would happen. Imagine if the decision to use the nuclear bomb was up to direct popular vote. Our planet would be an irradiated wasteland many times over.

Well, right until Pearl Harbor there were the do-fights and don't-fights. If the anti-war party hadn't been assassinated, ran out and broken, we wouldn't have had to fight Japan at all.

The problem is these people still ruled. Imagine them pressing forward with a nuclear plan (which would have absolutely occurred if they thought they could get away with it.) Interestingly Germany sent material to them to dump on our shores as a sort of nuclear bomb but we intercepted it. It is thought that we used it against Japan, which is hilarious. But I digress.

The point is--even if they planned on surrendering, they had no intention of concessions. Would those in power (who were as guilty as the Nazi) willingly turn themselves over for trial? Huehue.

As far as the Soviet issue, yeah, your facts go without saying. And Truman did get his results--he got Stalin to restrain himself (In a certain way...though there was the cold war.)