tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1002783669929866987.post3315207916632085379..comments2023-10-01T01:54:55.194-07:00Comments on Hitchhiker's Guide to Nuclear (Blog and Podcast): Destruction, Disarmament & DataUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1002783669929866987.post-49072816128897515552019-04-09T21:36:10.083-07:002019-04-09T21:36:10.083-07:00Its really great post I have some important inform...Its really great post I have some important information on your blog its very helpful for me.<br /><br /><a href="https://lifespantechnology.com/data-security-destruction" rel="nofollow"><br />Data Destruction <br /></a><br />Michael Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12615096137904845470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1002783669929866987.post-72390188181188984942013-09-09T07:10:31.967-07:002013-09-09T07:10:31.967-07:00Couldn't agree more when it comes to substanti...Couldn't agree more when it comes to substantiating data with half-baked analogies. That's why I mentioned the idea of moulding data to reinforce a certain point of view in the preamble. Strikes me that many people believe the clinical nature of statistics automatically qualifies them as being indiscriminate, when - by the very nature of the human condition - we can only understand them via inherent analytical bias.<br /><br />I agree with N. Korea, Pakistan as well... To use an aforementioned half-baked analogy; it's the same concept as the revolver or Gatling gun. Once they were invented and engineered, those weapons irrevocably changed the face of war forever... To the point no one was willing to give them up through fear of the enemy striking against them with the very same technology. Simply creates a vicious cycle. I believe and hope we'll reduce our stockpiles but can only see a World in which it will happen exponentially, never reaching zero.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332093429994372265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1002783669929866987.post-80949473346597627102013-09-09T06:52:38.063-07:002013-09-09T06:52:38.063-07:00It seems a very naive way of looking at things. Fo...It seems a very naive way of looking at things. For example, I hate comments like "A one megaton bomb dropped on a several million person city would leave up to 50 times more victims then there are hospital beds in America. I mean, who thinks these things up? It really gives no idea of context, except making it look really bad which is obviously the aim. Of course, the world isn't ready to deal with a huge bomb being dropped, which is why the small quote at the top right of the infographic is so important...<br /><br />"the only use for an atomic bomb is to keep someone else from using one". <br /><br />With N. Korea, Pakistan, Israel etc. all being armed, I don't think there's any other option unless someone can magic up some way of making nuclear weapons disappear. They're all in favour of disarmament here, but no mention of how to go about it.. Fabricating incomprehensible, uncorrelated facts really isn't helping anyone, no? Nuclear weapons are bad, yes, we get it - the thing we're interested in is how could we get rid of them!!Tobynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1002783669929866987.post-22501768333129813312013-09-09T06:15:39.195-07:002013-09-09T06:15:39.195-07:00Thanks for the heads-up Toby; edited the article a...Thanks for the heads-up Toby; edited the article accordingly. Didn't notice "the miles squared" note, bad eyesight on my part. What do you think of the infographic though?Matt Guntherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353628782451047072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1002783669929866987.post-60383893527839856652013-09-09T06:10:12.117-07:002013-09-09T06:10:12.117-07:00The blast radii are in miles squared - it's no...The blast radii are in miles squared - it's not so clear I agree but they're not that far off. 5000 miles means around a 70 mile radius. That's believableTobynoreply@blogger.com