Hacker News Reader

Comment by cLeEOGPw | Hacker News Reader

Any technology can be used for both good and bad. There's nothing inherently wrong with technology.

No, that is not true. Look at the atomic bomb for example. The technology here is not just nuclear fission – the bomb itself has a lot of unique technology.

There can be a lot inherently wrong with technology, and there quite often is.

Name one technology used in a fission device that doesn't have other, non-weapon application.

Weapons-grade uranium.

Stop enriching before it gets to weapons grade purity and it's fuel for a reactor. Fail.

I'm no expert on the topic, but I think you need essentially different tools and technology to reach the purity necessary for weapons. So using these way more expensive tools to create fuel would be just stupid.

They use exactly the same process and technology (these days either gas diffusion or gas centrifuge). These are iterative processes; you keep running them until you get the level of enrichment you want (<20% for fuel, >80% for weapons). Quit speculating on how you can get the answer you want and try the facts.

You can make a campfire out of plastic explosives, too. You got an answer to your question and then moved the goalposts. Move on.

I asked what technology in a fission bomb did have non-military applications. He answered with a product (not a technology) for which the technology to produce has other, obvious, non-military applications. He is wrong, your point about plastic explosives is irrelevant sophistry, and no goalposts have been moved.

What about all the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE)? The nuke is extremely destructive and extremely dangerous, but its not inherently wrong, they have been used to close gas wells by the Russians, and I am pretty sure the US had the plowshares program.

There are definitely some arguments that we could have used conventional explosives for those purposes, but my point is that a nuke is just a tool, its the people who decide to use it admirably or despicably.

Operation Plowshare didn't have much practical application:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare

Actually, Plowshare succeeded in it's practical applications. They wanted to dig big holes fast, and by god they did. That was when the indirect costs of applying the technology (namely, poisoning the world) became apparent and it was prudently abandoned.

I would use effective to describe what you are talking about. If it were practical, the utility would exceed the indirect costs.

That's a fair statement.

Isn't radioactive fallout a direct cost of the technology?

As maxerickson pointed out, that's true, and I acknowledge the defect in my argument.

We might just fundamentally disagree an the whole tool ideology.

Imagine this device: It only has button, pressing it will torture every human beeing in earth for 100 years and then wipe out what's left. Trying to disassemble or analyze it will do the same.

Would this still classify as "just a tool"? (peaceful uses: explaining the importance of restraint etc.)

This is not supposed to be an analogy, but a serious question, because I don't believe that guns dont't kill people. And if we disagree on such a fundamental question, I don't think an internet debate could have a sensible outcome .

Guns alone don't kill people (at least if they're not programmed to do so automatically), but as humans sometimes act irrationally, one could say if the population had less guns then there will be less deaths by gun shot.

The sole purpose of a gun is the kill/destroy more efficiently because knives and forks were not.

Nothing really has just one purpose. I admit that the person who built the weapon may have done so with the idea of killing in mind, but nobody can stop me using the gun to crack a nut or scare animals using a blank cartridge. Ultimately is a person (or a machine built as an extension of somebody's will) who points to something and pulls the trigger.

In your hyperbolic example, the tool has no potential positive purpose, so obviously it is only a tool for destruction. I don't think nukes come close to fitting this description, and I don't really understand the purpose of the question, but if it is earnestly asked I will answer it.

I don't deny that nuclear technology has contributed to some of the worst calamities to befall humanity, I simply disagree that they have ONLY done negative things.

I might quibble on the definition of "technology".

For instance, yes, a gun is a tool designed to kill a thing. Some guns are specifically designed to kill people.

But the technology of gunpowder propelled projectiles has peaceful applications. For instance, one of the early uses was to propel a rope to distressed boats and ships so that passengers could be rescued.

Likewise with the hypothetical device you have described. Sure, sounds terrible. But what are the underlying technologies it is built upon? Unless you've tapped into some sort of fundamental evil force of the universe, there are probably some pretty awesome technologies involved, that would have peaceful, useful applications in another device that wasn't so awful.

But nukes are the reason there haven't been any direct wars between major powers since WWII. Isn't that a good thing?

Without the Atomic bomb, millions of more people would have died. Thus the Atomic bomb saved lives as well as created a disincentive for Communist expansion during the Cold War. Western Europe would have been a war zone in 1960 if it weren't for the nuclear threat.

Just a caveman assessment of "atom bomb bad, flower good" is intellectually weak. The atomic bomb created a balance of power, the destruction of which would have resulted in countless wars and deaths.

Just a caveman assessment of "atom bomb bad, flower good" is intellectually weak.

A wannabe cold warrior fantasy of "without the nuke, the godless Commies would have put the boot to the civilized world" is just as intellectually weak. I thought this furious jerking off over Regan-era revisionist talking points was passé in the current century.

This subthread detached from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10102113 and marked off-topic, since it seems to be the root of the flamewar.

We've noticed over and over how generic tangents are the gateway to flamewars. Tangents about something specific ("off-topic, but I once worked with that group...") are often interesting, but generic tangents dilute discussion and not infrequently eventuate in Hitler.

Design can embed intent into an object. Software can embed it very well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com