Oh hey, there's a debate-y thing. Missed those.
So I've read through, and
@ChikoLad I have to say you've convinced me. Your point is valid that the actual use of nuclear weapons, rather than merely the threat, is presently a matter beyond politics (although I would argue that the humanitarian issue would motivate people far greater than the environmental, at least at the level of the general public).
I do think that you
can send a particular political message with an actual nuclear launch - one with a cavalcade of consequences, up to and including retaliation, but a message nevertheless - and I do believe it's limited to the current situation of humanity, which I'll circle round to in a moment. Fact remains that the base point, right now, is utterly correct.
However, other than the one point above - which may merely be viewpoint - I
would criticize your delivery. You're also correct in that the primary disagreement with your initial position is a semantics issue, inasmuch as you utilized terms above and beyond what they'd be considered in the public consciousness. That much, however, could have been avoided.
For better or worse (likely worse) political issues are popularly taken to be some mix of governance and machinations of people in positions of power, while environmental issues mostly evoke pollution and preservation motifs. Neither of these would cause people to immediately associate nuclear weapons with the kind of salt-the-fields irrevocable obliteration of the area in which they are used. The connection is indeed
there, and people absolutely could come round to that if the connection is pointed out, but absent the initial explanation people have been sidewinding around and around the primary point for three-odd pages.
I do wish that people would've requested elaboration before dogpiling on you. But absent that - and absent the expectation of that - I would advise laying it out the connection in full next time.
Let's circle back around to that other point about current situation though:
From my perspective, anyway, something being political involves working toward some kind of endgame for either the world or your small portion of the world. But complete nuclear devastation wouldn't have an endgame. Or at least, not one that people would be around for. And considering not even the launcher would be left standing, it'd run counter to the universal goal of self-preservation. In other words, motivated purely by madness.
Essentially I view politics' endgame as partial alteration. Nuclear genocide's endgame would be total deletion.
So maybe I've been playing too many space games, and this is definitely looking further ahead than any of us involved in this discussion would live to see, but I kind of wonder how this'll play out when we have access to more territory than our one blue marble.
See part of the nuclear debate right now is, for lack of a better word, selfish. The entire point of consideration for this is the loss of a finite resource - our space here on Earth, and by extension everything that space can provide.
While we're confined to this dot, that stock remains finite. Even if not retaliated in kind, a nuclear launch removes a portion of our planet for generations, at minimum. You could make arguments for the damage to the landscape, the loss of wildlife and habitat, and the loss of space for settlements. You could note the loss of every creative endeavor from every sentient mind in the vicinity, the effects of which are literally incalculable. But even if you somehow consider these tragic, but transient, the point remains that even natural resources which may far outlive all those things will be effectively locked away longer than the great-grandchildren of any human alive for the detonation.
For every nuclear tragedy, we must live with the consequences. This is the crux of the point made so far, and I agree with it.
But imagine if you will that such was no longer true. Imagine that for every time you reduced a planet and its inhabitants to nothing but nuclear glass, you had ten planets thriving in other sections of the galaxy. Imagine if the loss of those resources wouldn't even be felt. You have reserves, what do you care?
I believe that would make it be seen as a significantly more acceptable weapon, however untrue that may continue to be. The deletion wouldn't be total. You, as a nuclear aggressor, have places to hide, where you could survive the onslaught and ride out the fallout.
The particularly troubling part of this thought experiment is that I can see this coming back around full circle, to people who are short-sighted enough to believe that they have sufficient reserves and sufficient places to survive even before we've spread beyond Earth. It's horrendously untrue, but that doesn't mean a small subset of people won't believe it. Politicians are still humans, and humans have flaws.
It's why I'm glad no man rules alone, but I pray it still takes more than one to push the button.
I'm fine leaving my circuitous babble there. Let's talk better subjects.
Me with my pizza.
Bacon chicken ranch. It’s not what I wanted but it’s still good.
That is some good ****ing taste. Jelly achieved.
This is what I ordered, at least.
I had to shop around a bit to find a store that carried both dice and a baggie that I liked enough. I wanted something a little more special than "normal dice but with a different color."
Ooo.
Dragon dice in tux. I like it. And pairing the bag is a nice touch, I don't know why more people don't do that.
I will say I've had some problems with designer dice like that personally, but that's been mostly because they've been hard to read quickly compared to flat numerals. The high contrast for tux dice should mostly alleviate that.
My shiniest dice go tragically underused:
- but that's more because they're solid metal and tend to damage everything they're rolled on. They practically count as projectile weapons.
Also I've been kind of slowly acquiring dice since I was a kid - partly playing a lot of terribly geeky games, partly just really like dice - so eventually it's just been a matter of volume:
There's something like two and a half actual pounds of dice in that sack.
And not a single one likes me well enough to roll decent.
It's terrible.