|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
SOUTH DAKOTA (NEWS10) – The Keystone Pipeline leak is apparently worse than first thought.
TransCanada Corporation now says it appears approximately 16,800 gallons of oil have leaked in South Dakota since Saturday. The company says it reported the 400-barrel estimate Thursday to the National Response Centre and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration. It says the estimate is based on the excavation of soil to expose more than 100 feet of pipe and takes into account factors including oil observed in the soil and the potential area affected.
At first officials said less than 200 gallons were spilled.
TransCanada says the leak has been “controlled” although they have yet to find the source of the leak. The company has told customers the pipeline will remain closed until early next week.
Source
|
On April 10 2016 14:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +SOUTH DAKOTA (NEWS10) – The Keystone Pipeline leak is apparently worse than first thought.
TransCanada Corporation now says it appears approximately 16,800 gallons of oil have leaked in South Dakota since Saturday. The company says it reported the 400-barrel estimate Thursday to the National Response Centre and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration. It says the estimate is based on the excavation of soil to expose more than 100 feet of pipe and takes into account factors including oil observed in the soil and the potential area affected.
At first officials said less than 200 gallons were spilled.
TransCanada says the leak has been “controlled” although they have yet to find the source of the leak. The company has told customers the pipeline will remain closed until early next week. Source
Has there ever been a case where there was less oil leaked than a company originally claimed?
|
On April 10 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote: [quote] I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire. I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism. I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal. So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way! lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it.
- Insist deal is bad
- Offer no alternative
- When asked for details you have no response
Is your intention to embargo Panama unless they meet some demands you haven't yet specified? You haven't given any details for anybody to understand your position so of course nobody recognizes your argument.
Repeating the line we could have gotten a better deal is meaningless. What deal should we have bartered?
|
On April 10 2016 14:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons.
Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money.
What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much.
Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less?
So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire. I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism. I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal. So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way! lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it. - Insist deal is bad
- Offer no alternative
- When asked for details you have no response
Is your intention to embargo Panama unless they meet some demands you haven't yet specified? You haven't given any details for anybody to understand your position so of course nobody recognizes your argument.
It's really not complicated. Don't take the deal unless they give up more than rules they can override if it goes against what they want. Let them keep begging if they don't want to.
I have issues with whether it was family farmers or Big Ag that benefited more as a result of the increase of duty free imports to Panama as well. But considering I can't get people to entertain the idea that we didn't need to take the deal in the first place, that would be an even harder point to make.
EDIT: I don't need to rewrite the trade deal myself to illustrate that them agreeing to rules they don't have to abide by wasn't enough. Of course I think they could have done more, but are people really arguing having a loophole to ignore the new rules doesn't significantly undermine any rules they "got"?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
just keep in mind gh has not read any part of any fta before reading the preamble of the panama deal
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
It's been a big week for supporters of paid family leave.
The city of San Francisco and the state of New York took groundbreaking steps toward new and more generous leave policies. Advocates hope the moves will create momentum in other places that are considering similar measures.
"I do believe this will pave the way for other states," says Dina Bakst, the co-founder of A Better Balance, a nonprofit in New York that advocates for family-friendly policies in the workplace.
"What we've seen in other fights, like paid sick days and our fights for pregnancy accommodations — it starts local and then it sweeps the nation," Bakst says. "I think we're on the paid family leave wave."
Starting in a few years, workers in New York state will be able to take 12 weeks of partially paid family leave to care for a new child or an ailing parent. That gives New York the most generous family leave benefits of any state in the country.
"We are restoring respect and pride and dignity to the worker with paid family leave," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said at a rally Monday, "which says no one should choose between seeing their child born and earning a paycheck."
The following day, San Francisco's board of supervisors approved a bill guaranteeing most workers six weeks of paid leave at their full salaries.
Both measures go far beyond what federal law requires. The Family and Medical Leave Act mandates that employers offer their workers 12 weeks of leave. But it's unpaid. And even that doesn't apply to many part-time workers.
Source
|
Sadly, the states in most dire need of family leave protection increases are the least likely to pass them
|
Mississippi goddam, as Nina Simone once sang. You really know how to tick people off. The southern state has come a long way since it led the fight to maintain racial segregation. But this week it decided to take a new stand – against the LGBT community. Opponents of the anti-LGBT effort won’t give up without a fight, and this time, business leaders are at the vanguard.
Once shy of causing a political fuss, businesses large and small are backing LGBT rights, and states that don’t support them are losing jobs as a result.
Following the passage of House Bill 1523 into law Tuesday, Mississippi will soon be the state offering the least protection to gay, lesbian and transgender people at a time when twenty-one states, largely across the south, have introduced laws offering their clear response to the legalisation of gay marriage by allowing people and businesses to refuse services based on their own religious beliefs.
This sweep of anti-LGBT legislation is revealing the clear separation that now exists between conservative-leaning state legislatures and businesses, local and national, that are now supporters as well as signatories to campaigns calling for the legislation’s repeal.
The laws – allowing individuals and institutions to deny services on religious grounds in Mississippi and, in North Carolina, a ban on anti-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and a requirement that, in public buildings and schools, transgender people use bathrooms corresponding to their gender as assigned at birth – produced a rapid response.
In North Carolina, PayPal canceled a $3.6m investment for a new global operations centre that would have employed 400 people; Nissan, the largest single employer in Mississippi, quickly reiterated its support of the LGBT community, and Duke Energy, the state’s largest power company, has come out strongly in opposition to discrimination, but has not taken a position on the law itself.
Local business leaders and educators warned that the legislation could harm the state’s competitiveness in attracting business and investment. “These assholes talk about gay women and gay men using the exact same language they were using in the 50s and 60s for segregationist purposes,” said the award-winning chef John Currence, owner of several restaurants in Oxford, Mississippi. He warned that Mississippi’s HB1523, known as the Religious Liberty Accommodation Act, would put businesses off from setting up in the state.
Source
|
On April 10 2016 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 14:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote: [quote] This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing.
In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire. I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism. I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal. So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way! lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it. - Insist deal is bad
- Offer no alternative
- When asked for details you have no response
Is your intention to embargo Panama unless they meet some demands you haven't yet specified? You haven't given any details for anybody to understand your position so of course nobody recognizes your argument. It's really not complicated. Don't take the deal unless they give up more than rules they can override if it goes against what they want. Let them keep begging if they don't want to. I have issues with whether it was family farmers or Big Ag that benefited more as a result of the increase of duty free imports to Panama as well. But considering I can't get people to entertain the idea that we didn't need to take the deal in the first place, that would be an even harder point to make. EDIT: I don't need to rewrite the trade deal myself to illustrate that them agreeing to rules they don't have to abide by wasn't enough. Of course I think they could have done more, but are people really arguing having a loophole to ignore the new rules doesn't significantly undermine any rules they "got"?
Nobody is saying that the loophole was a good thing. You're just jumping to the conclusion that we should either embargo Panama or some other form of trade retaliation unless they dismantle their bank secrecy laws. This position would never happen and the idea that we can just hold out on trade because they aren't going to nuke us like Iran is not reasonable.
If you want to talk about hurting family farmers that would be not having trade deal with Panama and preventing exports either from an embargo or just a raise in tariffs. I'm not sure a trade deal exists that benefits Big Ag less than family farmers. A more reasonable position would be Big Ag getting a great deal while family farmers get a bad deal, but that wasn't the case with the Panama trade deal.
The point of suggesting a deal was thinking about whether Panama would accept that deal and if they didn't what the consequences of that would be. It's really easy to say we could have gotten a better deal and of course they're going to submit to us because USA USA USA. What isn't easy is clearly stating what your demands are, what the repercussions are if your position isn't accepted, and how that effects relations with other nations.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Greenhorizon knows the best people, these are very smart people and they are going to make the best deals.
Even if some things are problematic you need to explain alternatives, how they work how it affects other people, without doing so we don't neccesarily know how they play out. Its a tradeoff after all.
|
President Barack Obama on Friday told donors that Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz were doing Democrats a “favor” by exposing extreme views within their party on issues such as immigration and national security.
“I actually think that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have done us a favor,” Obama said, referring to policy positions that would restrict Muslims and Mexicans from entering the country.
Obama said Trump and Cruz, the two front-runners in the Republican nomination contest ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election, have upset mainstream “establishment” Republicans with their insurgent campaigns.
But he told about 100 people at the annual “signature” fundraising dinner for Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, that Trump had laid bare what some in the Republican party had been saying for years.
“He said, ‘You know what? I can deliver this message with more flair, with more panache,’” Obama said.
Speaking in an opulent two-storey atrium with marble pillars in the home of billionaire oil heirs Gordon and Ann Getty, where donors paid $33,400 per couple to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Obama mocked Trump.
“In 10 months, I will no longer be president of the United States. But in 10 months, I will - contrary to Mr. Trump’s opinion - still be a citizen of the United States,” he said, drawing laughter and cheers from the crowd.
Trump had long raised questions about whether Obama, who was born in Hawaii, was actually born outside the United States.
Source
|
Pre-lame duck Obama is a pretty cool customer lol
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
With bad/mediocre canidates on both sides and him almost finishing his term he can now say whatever the fuck he wants, its hilarious. I believe his approval rates are also at an all time high.
|
On April 11 2016 00:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 14:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire. I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism. I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal. So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way! lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it. - Insist deal is bad
- Offer no alternative
- When asked for details you have no response
Is your intention to embargo Panama unless they meet some demands you haven't yet specified? You haven't given any details for anybody to understand your position so of course nobody recognizes your argument. It's really not complicated. Don't take the deal unless they give up more than rules they can override if it goes against what they want. Let them keep begging if they don't want to. I have issues with whether it was family farmers or Big Ag that benefited more as a result of the increase of duty free imports to Panama as well. But considering I can't get people to entertain the idea that we didn't need to take the deal in the first place, that would be an even harder point to make. EDIT: I don't need to rewrite the trade deal myself to illustrate that them agreeing to rules they don't have to abide by wasn't enough. Of course I think they could have done more, but are people really arguing having a loophole to ignore the new rules doesn't significantly undermine any rules they "got"? Nobody is saying that the loophole was a good thing. You're just jumping to the conclusion that we should either embargo Panama or some other form of trade retaliation unless they dismantle their bank secrecy laws. This position would never happen and the idea that we can just hold out on trade because they aren't going to nuke us like Iran is not reasonable. If you want to talk about hurting family farmers that would be not having trade deal with Panama and preventing exports either from an embargo or just a raise in tariffs. I'm not sure a trade deal exists that benefits Big Ag less than family farmers. A more reasonable position would be Big Ag getting a great deal while family farmers get a bad deal, but that wasn't the case with the Panama trade deal. The point of suggesting a deal was thinking about whether Panama would accept that deal and if they didn't what the consequences of that would be. It's really easy to say we could have gotten a better deal and of course they're going to submit to us because USA USA USA. What isn't easy is clearly stating what your demands are, what the repercussions are if your position isn't accepted, and how that effects relations with other nations.
You realize the default position isn't "embargo"? Hard to think you're making a genuine argument when you're starting from that misunderstanding.
It wasn't us that wanted this deal to start with, Panama wanted the deal. Lot's of countries want trade deals with the US. For instance New Zealand want's a deal, we haven't given them one. The idea that there was some pressing need to make the deal so that waiting for a better deal wasn't possible or preferable I just outright reject.
From what I understand about Panama farming and US farming it wasn't family farmers in the US or subsistence farmers in Panama that benefited. Both are poisoning their local water, both are getting squeezed out by industrial corporate farming, and so on.
I have to say that you all set aside that Panama is essentially not bound to the deals financial regulations should they choose not to be, and that there is no evidence it actually reduced or made harder the stashing of money of there, incredibly easily.
If we're not going to agree on that there's no reason to continue.
|
Who the hell expected that he would?
John Kerry will not offer an apology for the United States’ use of the atomic bomb against Japan when he becomes the first US secretary of state to visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial museum on Monday, a senior US official said.
Kerry is visiting the city, which was obliterated by a US atomic bomb on 6 August 1945, to attend a gathering of foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies that Japan opened on Sunday with a call to end nuclear weapons.
The US diplomat is to join his counterparts from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan on Monday to tour the city’s atomic bomb museum and to lay flowers at a cenotaph for its victims, becoming the first in his post to do so.
“If you are asking whether the secretary of state came to Hiroshima to apologise, the answer is no,” a senior US official told reporters late on Sunday.
“If you are asking whether the secretary and I think all Americans and all Japanese are filled with sorrow at the tragedies that befell so many of our countrymen, the answer is yes,” the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added.
Kerry’s trip could pave the way for an unprecedented visit to Hiroshima by a sitting US president when Barack Obama attends the annual G7 summit to be held in Japan next month.
Source
|
Norway28672 Posts
In Norway, and I believe most of Europe, the general consensus is that dropping the atomic bomb(s) was a terrible war crime. Not that anyone was expecting Kerry to apologize - but I do believe a significant portion of Europeans would appreciate that. I think the most heated debate I've had with my family (and we frequently have heated debates, in a loving manner of course;) ) originated in me saying that it was possible to defend their use.
In general this belief correlates positively with leftist political views and negatively with studying history in university - greater understanding generally makes people more accepting of Hiroshima (Nagasaki is considered at best gratuitous among university professors as well though).
|
On April 11 2016 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:In Norway, and I believe most of Europe, the general consensus is that dropping the atomic bomb(s) was a terrible war crime. Not that anyone was expecting Kerry to apologize - but I do believe a significant portion of Europeans would appreciate that.  I think the most heated debate I've had with my family (and we frequently have heated debates, in a loving manner of course;) ) originated in me saying that it was possible to defend their use. In general this belief correlates positively with leftist political views and negatively with studying history in university - greater understanding generally makes people more accepting of Hiroshima (Nagasaki is considered at best gratuitous among university professors as well though). This largely agrees with my experience among left-leaning English/History department intellectuals; I think those categorically opposed to the bombing of Hiroshima fail to grasp just how fanatical and determined the Japanese war effort had been prior to the drop of the first bomb, and there's definitely room for a harm reduction argument in favor of Hiroshima. On the other hand, like you said, Nagasaki is a bit of a tougher sell, though it should be noted that Japanese communications in the days following Hiroshima emphasized that they would continue the war effort even in the face of such startling destruction. In any case, there are good arguments on both sides of the WW2 nuclear bomb question.
As an aside, I think it makes more sense to focus on LeMay's firebombing of Tokyo as the least defensible aspect of the US's Pacific war strategy.
|
United States42720 Posts
I don't think there is any reading of the Japanese theatre of WW2 in which you feel at all sorry for what happened to Japan.
|
You might be opening a can of worms there Drone, but I want to add a belief I don't see explicitly represented very often, but one that I have, which is that as a species (or planet), we might be lucky that in our history, nuclear weapons were invented during wartime, which should hopefully bias latter generations against using them ever again compared to if they had never been used. I can imagine other planets, having invented nuclear weapons during peacetime - for example, by inventing nuclear power first through a civilian program, or by having a nuclear arms race - being more likely to experience catastrophic nuclear war.
|
|
|
|