What are the ethics of nuclear bomb scientists?

>>7680678
the bigger the better

USA USA USA

Nuclear bombs are not a defense tool and purely and offense weapon, and noone should possess or research it.

File: B53_at_Pantex.jpg (716KB, 2048x1355px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 2048x1355px

This thing was 562 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima.

Why is this even allowed and what kind of person would create it?

>They built 340 of them

"Now we are all sons of bitches."

>>7680678
Something along the lines of "if we don't make it, someone else will".

>>7680716
>Why is this even allowed and what kind of person would create it?

The better question is, what led them to decide that a weapon like that is a valuable asset for national defense?

>>7680736
Mutually assured destruction is a hell of a drug.

File: Sedancrater2[1].jpg (78KB, 633x510px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 633x510px

>>7680736
To be fair, we did try to find some sort of peaceful uses for them.

Unfortunately, they happen to be shit at anything besides killing millions of people in excruciating fashion. And earth clearance.

>>7680736
Because the US is filled with jingoistic, corporate-sponsored politicians.

i am become death, the destroyer of worlds

>>7680690
>Nuclear bombs are not a defense tool and purely and offense weapon

It's actually exactly the opposite.

There is no benefit for anyone in actually using nuclear weapons - they just guarantee your own shit will get fucked as well. Their only purpose is as a deterrent against attack, conventional or otherwise, and they are very effective in that role.

So you see, they are actually ONLY a defensive weapon.

>>7680751
>using nukes to clear land and build dams
fuck yeah, 'merica.

wasn't there a case of this sometime in the 50's they were gonna' nuke this small area up in Alaska but they didn't realize there was a tiny innuit/eskimo populace up there?

>>7680678

Defensive military technology. If your most antagonistic adversary has it then you better have it as well.

>>7680770
This. Nukes are the only reason the cold war didn't turn into WW3. Open combat would have let to a nuclear exchange, and neither side wanted to get nuked.

Ironically, the creation of such a powerful weapon and the fear of a full nuclear war is was probably kept humans in its place and will allow us to stay alive.

Asimov hit the nail with this one as well. Read the gentle vultures.

http://www.ebooktrove.com/Asimov,%20Isaac/Asimov,%20Isaac%20-%20Nine%20Tomorrows.pdf

The only time we, in our lifetime, will get to see a nuclear war is if a small islamic country gets a nuke, I highly doubt there would be much negotiation.

>>7680678
>What are the ethics of nuclear bomb scientists?

They invented the only technology that will allow us to lift thousands of people into orbit. They get a cookie for that.

>>7680832
Pakistan has nukes. The only thing keeping them under control is the overwhelming military superiority of India.

>>7680882
India also has nuclear weapons.

I'm more afraid of Palestine or Iran obtaining them, god forbid ISIS.

>>7680829
>>7680770
Nobel thought that dynamite would end war for the exact same reasons.
He was wrong.

>>7680904
>implying Isis wouldn't just blow themselves up

>>7680678
You should read "prisoners dilemma" by William Poundstone. It's an interesting, if not fantastically well written account of game theory and the cold war and it delves into the ethics of nuke scientists. I thought it was pretty good, although certainly not an in depth survey of game theory

>>7681010
Because you can't wipe out humanity with TNT while you can with Nuclear weapons.
Nukes will become offensive when we start colonizing other planets, if we ever do...