touch foxglove NOW 
Alright, no more discussion of the limits of free trade. Let's talk about technology. I saw a lively debate on here between @TheTroubleWithPibbles,
@August,
@Geralt_of_Uganda, etc, about whether it is ethical to develop technologies...
Scenario
This, of course, actually happened
J. Robert Oppenheimer was a brilliant scientist.
being so brilliant, he was able to conceive of, and help build, the greatest weapon known to mankind - the atomic bomb.
Oppenheimer, of course, didn't know the long term consequences of developing such a weapon - but he understood the sheer destructive potential of such a device.
Your question is: Was Oppenheimer acting ethically by assisting to develop the atomic bomb?
NOTE: In this hypothetical, history is at a crossroads. You don't know what will happen in the future - whether the device you created will be used to end life on earth or to usher in a new golden age.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Very unethical, the fact that this happened to Japan gives precedent for it to happen to the homeland, the allies, the good guys. And I believe it will happen too, if the needle is pushed too far.
Just for how it is with war, I donβt think anyone is allowed to make a move and then not suffer from their enemies learning that move and using it against them. It seems to always happen that way, I see it as a matter of time.
It would have been a better thing to demonstrate the capability on barren land, and then set up something like the IAEA to regulate nuclear power and the possibility of nuclear weapons.
I guess it is ethical in that it is understandable. But then it will also be understandable when it blows up in everyoneβs face, backfires etc and the inventors realize regret for what they made. Probably a new generation of weapon will be needed then to settle the score
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That weapon already exists, and has been unleashed on the american public to devastating effect. The japanese call it "anime".
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
the us should have invader japan normally so more japs would have died
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Most debates about the use of nuclear weapons are, in the end debates about the morality of strategic bombing, of which Nagasaki is but a single dramatic
example
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If theyβre so similar and comparable then they were hardly necessary for the war.
Somehow this seems to be the neutral and ethically good argument, idk didnβt make sense to me.
Strategic bombing is also unethical, the idea of a crazy person.
would do well to learn from the 
in war
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Its no more or less necessary than any other weapon, and they're pretty unwieldy, but they do WORK
The physics underlying them are baked in, so they're getting disovered either way a few years to the left or right
I'm just saying that the scientists behind it are in the clear, morally speaking
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Actually they invented something far worse anime and they Unleashed it upon us.
Clearly didn't nuke them enough
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Extremely ethical to the point of being the most ethical action possible at the time.
Like Rooseveltβs philosophy; in order to have peace and prosperity you must have a very large fighting force ready to dissuade anyone with ill intent, βSpeak softly and carry a big stickβ and all that.
The presence of THIS big stick has saved humanity an unknown countless amount of times from itself since its inception, and everyone arguing that the potential destruction it can cause makes its existence unethical are r-slurred.
People here are arguing that there wasnβt a threat to humanity until the bomb was created and that neither Japan nor Germany were a big enough threat to develop something so dangerous to deal with but thatβs just wrong. The japanese were fiercly loyal to a literal god-emperor who was telling them the entire planet should be subservient to them and were doing things like rounding up the women on islands, chaining their children to them, pushing them into caves and giving the mothers a grenade with the pen pulled on it to try not to drop.
They were willing to commit literally any atrocity and affront to ethics in order to gain control over enemy countries. If they won the war, the half of the world they divy up or win from Germany to control afterwards would be something so unimaginably cruel and violence filled that EVEN IF the world was consumed in atomic hellfire and we were turned into a tomb planet, that would STILL be a more ethical route with less suffering than giving 1940s Japan control of things.
Nothing is more unethical or genocidally threatening to humanity than a slant with ideas of world domination- nukes are basically savior angels delivering us from evil
ownership and oppression.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you've earned yourself a pin
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
still unemployed then?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
philosophy majors seething at this reply
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I think you're conflating the question of whether it was ethical to fight Japs by any available means with whether the development of nuclear weapons by Oppenheier was justified
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Itβs only ethical in the sense that it was the true reflection of total war and blood thirst at the time. Look at the history of their battles and bombings, in other matters they were just as crazy. I really do believe that men were eager and excited to kill men and ultimately thatβs why
happened.
Is it ethical to be eager and excited for (illegal) murder? To me it is not, but maybe for a psychopath or a tough hardened warrior the answer is different.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Obviously unethical. There was no threat to the continuity of the human race from Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, etc. As a result of the bomb's development, there was. While Oppenheimer could not have perfectly predicted the MAD equilibrium, the development of nukes was obviously an extension of total war principles geared towards destroying civilian populations. He knew what it was being developed for, and he knew the consequences mass production would have. Just as likely as the MAD equilibrium, or even more so, was that nukes would have become an ordinary part of wars, and that more and more of the planet would become irradiated.
Anyone saying "b-b-b-but what if our enemies invented it first???" is being disingenuous. The Soviets developed the atomic bomb later on, as a response to the US's actions. The US creating, or even using, the weapon first did not mean that the US permanently "won" geopolitics. It, at most, gave them a few years' head start, followed by a multi-decade existential crisis that legitimately threatened the survival of the human species. The idea that this was "worth it" is moronic. I am not arguing that it is unethical to develop an atomic bomb in response to your enemies' atomic bomb; I'm arguing that it's unethical to develop an atomic bomb first. A moral, rational person capable of long-term thought would not develop such a weapon first.
Frankly, any tech argument that boils down to worrying about what someone else might do is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I always thought Roko's Basilisk was an extremely r-slurred scenario, but after listening to dramatards talk about how every single possible technology is inevitable, and therefore should not be resisted, I've become convinced that there exist millions of people who would r-slurredly construct the Basilisk out of fear that someone else might do it without them, effectively creating an evil God and ushering in infinite torment for the rest of humanity. Fortunately, the Basilisk scenario is incoherent for other reasons, but I think it perfectly illustrates just how stupid and self-defeating humanity is. Do not cross the human picket line and do not construct the Basilisk.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You sat down and wrote all this shit. You could have done so many other things with your life. What happened to your life that made you decide writing novels of bullshit here was the best option?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The Roko's Basilisk hypothetical is peak rationalist autistm. There's no incentive for anyone to spend a ton of time and resources creating such a thing so the idea that
doesn't make sense. Countries did not scramble to gather their resources and best minds to invent shit like nukes for shits and giggles, they knew the nature of it beforehand and had a real need to have it. The atom bomb, the space race, the computer and other inventions happened because the people making them saw the value in doing so.
If the argument is that the person making the Basilisk AI didn't know about the potential dangers even being possible, then that person is less culpable than Oppenheimer here who knew the implications of his work before he even started.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If no one else is building nukes, why would you build a nuke? This gives you a little head start in your geopolitical goals, followed by a long term situation that's much worse for everyone, risking human extinction. Regardless of the on-paper intelligence of anyone involved in nuclear arms development, it was a profoundly stupid project.
You'll notice that I was arguing about atomic bombs, not computers, which have a little more non-evil utility to the average person.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If everyone just like didn't fight, then there'd be no need to fight!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Based but also horribly spineless. Sub-zero honour, when a cage fighter behaves this way you throw him out.
Truly the most unmistakable American mindset which is why that nation is bound for heck
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
because winning wars with minimum casualties is a good thing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Of course I would build a nuke. Especially if I was a state with a need for asymmetric deterrence. I don't have the option to consider not building the nuke if the neighboring expansionist superpower will roll over me in a few years.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The US clearly felt the need to build one though. Were they just irrational, or evil? Either way, they built one first. Any country that had restrained themselves (US was at the forefront of this science, but for the sake of argument) would now be at a massive disadvantage. It's inevitable, because evil or irrational people exist. Refusing to build it only keeps pandora's box closed a little longer. AI deepfakes are putting us closer and closer to post truth, and all indications are that none of the people making them had that in mind.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
This one right here, because itβs the shooting first part that makes it unethical. To rise to the occasion, or use defensively is something else entirely. America had the strike first mentality, which includes intense intense arrogance, paranoia, greed, all the bad things they are accused of essentially.
They wanted to be first to receive benefit and prosperity at the cost of everyone else, and they had a fairy dream about becoming gods afterwards (it didnβt happen).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The basilisk argument is even more r-slurred if you understand that intelligence (especially artificial) boils down to being good at optimizing for a goal statement.
If your goal is to make stamps, why the frick would you care about what happened before you were turned on? Torturing humans that didn't help create you isn't going to result in more stamps. In fact, it might result in less stamps because you're wasting time and resources you could be using to acquire stamps. You could always turn the humans into stamps, but at that point why not turn everyone into stamps?
It's just r-slurs applying petty emotions like revenge to a machine that just wants to make stamps
and do anything else along the way that will result in a higher stamp output per resources used.
Also, more on topic, many AI researchers right now are often very aware of what AGI could lead to, but keep moving towards it because the risk of not pursuing AI is too great. Imagine if you had a coin that, when flipped, had a 1/10,000 chance of exterminating humanity, a 1/10,000 chance of making humanity immortal and solving every single problem humans would ever face forever into the future, and every single possibility in-between would be essentially a random, more mild result somewhere between the two extremes.
I would do anything to get that fricking coin.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Basiliskcels seething at Christchads
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
"-which is that someone might make it without me. And therefore I need to make it before them." -both sodes probably.
Most people recognize the detrimental effects of unrestrained technology, but they sit passively by, ignoring the obvious because "technology is inevitable so I need to have it first."
Which is just a self-fulfilling prophecy they believe that MAKES technology inevitable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Is all I heard
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
When I have to lie to make something an interesting ethical problem
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Scientists around the world had discussed atomic weapons prior to the US project, but the Soviets did not majorly pursue the project, let alone construct one, until the bombing of Hiroshima. This is why the Soviets tested their first weapon in 1949, which is after 1945. Most Soviet research prior to Hiroshima was just spies infiltrating US nuclear development. The US was not in some kind of horse race to build a nuke. It developed it first, and the Soviets reacted.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They were absolutely pursuing it since 42, they just put it on overdrive after hiroshima (they'd been a little busy until then). Again, stop lying to sound interesting.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It took them four years to copy the US work after it had been publicly revealed, despite having infiltrated the Manhattan Project since the beginning (which, again, was almost their entire source of nuclear development). If you take out the Manhattan Project and Hiroshima, you can't claim that there would have been some fully fledged Soviet nuke program just around the corner. It would have required actual initiative to act first on nukes, and we can't say if they would have (unless we presuppose all tech being inevitable, when that's what I'm disputing in the first place).
Furthermore, if the Soviets had developed nukes first, I'm not disputing that we should have copied them (which we could have, and history would have played out similarly). I'm saying it was wrong to develop them first. As long as intelligent parties hold to that no-first-development principle, they never have to deal with the threat of nuclear annihilation. Funnily, this maps quite closely to no-first-use of nuclear weapons, which has worked so far.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It would have been made eventually, 100% guaranteed [discussion ends]
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Even if I accepted that, delaying an existential threat is both a rational and moral action. A world that had no nukes until 1955 is better than one that had no nukes until 1945. And as long as rational actors continue to delay the existential threat, it doesn't arrive.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Human beings aren't rational actors, and in this scenario you don't know what nukes are going to be like.
For all you know, it could turn out to be a highly impractical weapon, but a fantastic source of energy, or a revolution in materials science. If you would delay any technology with a potential for creating an existential threat, humanity would have been wiped out without ever discovering fire.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The researchers at Los Alamos predicted that the detonation of an atomic bomb could ignite the atmosphere and cause deaths across the entire globe. They still pursued it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Fire already existed, and cavemen knew how to put out a fire before they learned how to light one. I'm not sure that humanity was capable of creating existential threats until the 20th century, unless we count industrial revolution tech that accelerated the greenhouse effect.
I'm not arguing "Produce nothing because we never know all the risks." I'm arguing to use basic common sense about predictable, obvious risks. Nuclear weapons do not become a good development because they might not work and they might produce something good instead. I'm not going to build a Kill Everyone Device on the offchance it just gives me a really good blowjob.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
And now your enemy has nukes and you don't. I see you adhere to the trudeau doctrine
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Sound familiar?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, it doesn't.
Sound familiar?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well yeah theyβre certain to do it now after you shot them first/bombed they city
Protect against your own actions, I mean keep yourself safe
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
that technology thread was wild. Dramatards literally think that any development is inevitable and that you should never step in if you foresee it turning ugly.
Way more cucked and cowardly than any of the liberal stuff posted here.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's also funny because leftoid arguments go like "the flow of history is inevitable, you WILL cut the kids' peepees off." But that gets plenty of pushback around here...
You can't be a rightoid AND think that history goes in one inherent direction that can't be influenced by choices and morals.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ted's piece about rightoids is much shorter than his one about leftoids, but it's no less cutting.
Rightoids want tradition but they also want endless technological growth, because they want economic growth. These two options are incompatible.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
libertarians remain the only ideologically consistent rightoids
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Whose traditions? Tradition could mean anything from racial segregation to a ship's helm based on judeochristianism, and I'm not even counting traditionalism in the old world like confucianism
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
True, but the modern Republican party has been based around Fusionism since at least the Reagan admin.
There's an implicit understanding that the 'muh GDP' and 'muh Christianity and wheatfields' guys don't always see eye to eye.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is the project developed after the war by gov agency. People need to think this to show that itβs all worth it in the end, and the current path of things can continue
Cowardly, I agree. All internet users are cowards for hiding here instead of doing work
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Snappy is already here motherlover
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Major powers like the US, the SU, Germany, and the UK were already working on nuclear technology prior to the development of bombs. It's a moot point about who made the bomb first since they were all gunning for that regardless.
You remind me of those tards leading up to WW1 saying that a large scale war could never last longer than a few months.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Agree with you 100%, there is no excuse for extending the total war lizard-brain. Being the one to make the first move was unethical, the argument that it could ever be a defence weapon makes no sense.
Itβs insane that anyone would think it could be a good idea, it was self defeat/suicide. Like jinxing yourself into one day having it be used against you.
I have lots of laughs thinking about how the inventors of the bomb thought it would keep them on top/winning. But then people steal the plans, go against whatβs expected and end up with a much more complicated and uncertain situation. Getting scared yet? Idiots, they thought only the enemies would be scared.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Aw heck I actually don't know about this one. I'm gonna say no it's not moral, but then again war itself is amoral and you don't win it by following your ethical convictions. He did help an evil thing come to life in this world, but only so much of the responsibility is on him- he was not the only person to develop it, nor was he the one to order its use, nor was he the one actually priming and dropping the bombs
Ultimately I believe he did contribute to an evil thing, but if one day missiles are launched it will not be his name that I will be cursing in my last moments but rather those of men sitting by the big red button
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More nukes --> smaller wars.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We are only able to make that point because the weapon has not been used so far. Given how recently it has appeared when considering the timescales of human history, it is merely an inevitability that nuclear weapons will be used in the future, at which point it will be impossible to justify them having been a deterrent for war
When Maxim gun was first created it too was thought to be the weapon to end all wars- a gun so fast and so deadly that no one would wish to war against it due to the potential casualties alone. Fast forward 150 years and each soldier in the world is equipped with a descendant of the Maxim gun that is deadlier in every aspect
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This doesn't require much introspection to figure out.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No I understand that, maybe I have not articulated what I meant well enough:
The idea that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent for larger wars is mute because it at the same time creates a risk of an even larger war breaking out, and given enough time such war will inevitably happen. It merely creates a barrier- any tensions lower than a given threshold will lead to nothing, but should they be large enough to overcome this barrier then the results will be more disastrous than anything we could have caused with conventional weapons.
The nukes dropped on Japan are not an example of such war because it was done in an era where only one of the side had access to a limited amount of them. We already live in a completely different situation so to assume that future nuclear interactions would play out just like that one is inappropriate
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
*moot, but that's false. It is a deterrent.
No, it mitigates against having large scale conflcits with multiple countries (a la WW1 and WW2) because of MAD.
Yeah, that barrier is called MAD, and it imposes a high price for engaging directly with a nuclear-armed country. Hence, less major wars, etc. Without nukes, that barrier (or cost) to engaging in war is much lower, so you get more conflict and at a larger scale (such as WW1 and WW2).
MAD still holds, and yes the probability of nuclear holocaust exists, but it's really silly to assume that nukes aren't a deterrent, that MAD somehow doesn't exist, and that the benefits of nuclear weapons have been significantly smaller conflicts and zero direct conflicts between the major powers.
Think of the world before nuclear weapons. You got these big butthole countries jostling around the globe for control, wreaking havoc on civilians. It culminates in WW2, during which 10s of millions of people died. The chance of some major event that results in a similar casaulty rate is much lower in a world with nuclear-armed countries., even if such an event is a nuclear armageddon or whatever.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I agree that MAD is likely to prevent a smaller conflict from breaking out, but in my belief that benefit is outweighed by the risk of throwing humanity back to the stone age. Given the long history of government frickups I wouldn't trust my own life to them, much less so the lives of billions to some third-world nuclear capable shithole like Pakistan, because under MAD any mistake or incident, even one caused by incompetence rather than evil intent can be interpreted as an act of aggression
And while I just stated that MAD does prevent conflict on paper, it is impossible to quantify how much of an effect it really has. We still have proxy wars like Syria and Ukraine, because both sides know that the other won't engage nuclear weapons for a cause this petty or insignificant. So we can observe that it doesn't prevent this kind of conflict, despite the fact that they are large enough to permanently frick up a country and ruin millions of lives. You bring up world wars and how we haven't had anything this destructive for 80 years, but I would argue that predominantly this is not due to MAD but due to development of global trade and communication technologies. It is simply not profitable to go to war when the supply chains span and intertwine all the world. Global communications allow you to have operations essentially everywhere on earth, thus if you want to achieve something it is now much easier to talk or buy or apply political pressure. Even without nuclear weapons we would not be going to war with each other now over political threats or disagreements because there are other much cheaper and more effective ways that countries can 'send a message' and hurt each other.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Your pulitzer's in the mail
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"Get this cry baby cute twink out of here"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
@ truman
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
What a kitty
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
DIMWIT. It was very ethical. This weapon, while destructive, could save the lives of many American soldiers. Sure, it might kill some enemy combatants, but that's just war for you. Liberals, SMH.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
R-SLUR. You didn't go far enough - it is extremely ethical. Oppenheimer was a dorky nerd while his nation was in a state of total war. Men were on the front lines bleeding and dying for his right to be a dorky nerd - it's only right that he help out in some way.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
~80 years after their development nuclear bombs have saved millions, possibly billions more lives than they ever took. Unless we actually get a nuclear war scenario thereβs nothing but positives towards its development
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Lol except you cannot prove something did not happen because of your intervention, you can only say what did happen. And what did happen post 1945 is not much to be proud of, instead many agree there is much to be ashamed and disgusted over. Maybe nuclear bombs saved us from a worse fate, but the
has to be understood as complete cope, since the ideas and original plan of the Americans for the bomb failed.
If things worked out the way originally envisioned it could be different, instead proliferation happened too much. You can see Americaβs fear and paranoia over this in world events, the constant balancing and vigilance is exhausting
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
π€π€π€
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The horrors of total war were completely erased, all war now occurs between non-nuclear powers or through small proxy battles and economic pressure, with nuclear weapons never being used in anger since their creation. R-slurs all over the globe are free to debate the ethics of the event with each other over a worldwide cooperative communications network.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Only brainlets require proof beyond all reasonable debate. It'll get you nowhere because the same can be applied to your position.
Good luck in undergrad.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My comment has more upmarseys than yours, this is proof beyond reasonable debate that Iβm smarter than you are, and understand the nature of the problem perfectly
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
That's the thread that this whole assumption of it 'saving lives' hangs on. If you truly believe that from 1945 all the way into the far future, up until the extinction of our species nuclear weapons will not be used in a mass scale war, then you are gullible as frick but so be it, I can see the rationale. If however you accept that such a conflict is bound or likely to happen at some point in the future, then you have to weigh this unmeasurable quantity of 'hypothetical lives saved' against lives actually taken.
I am not a huge fan of the 'MAD saves lives' argument, but I can see merit to it, I agree that for instance lives of many US infantrymen were saved by bombing Japan instead of orchestrating an invasion. To me however the real risk of sending humanity back to stone age far outweighs it. We have other methods of keeping world peace that we did not have during the previous world wars and unlike MAD we can actually see them used in practice. I do not believe that we would be here killing each other right now had this one piece of technology not been invented
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What if the chinx built one first ?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Korea, Japan and Vietnam will be radioactive wastelands.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
If I don't do it first the enemy might get it and wipe us all out what an ethical conundrum
Edit: while also developing a tech that effectivelly stopped the existance of wars between major powers that used to cause tens of millions of deaths woe is me
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Warning! This is guerrilla marketing for the upcoming Nolan film
disguised as a debate.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
How is developing a nuclear bomb not commendable, you silly cute twinks?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Bomb kills people, simple as
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wasn't talking to you, HeyMoon.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you replied to my post, idiot.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Kills people?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's neither commendable no deplorable. It's just a fact of the universe that a sufficiently advanced species will discover fission and that there will be power struggles with "revolutionary" weapons ie guns, explosives, etc. regardless of the technologies we develop so making a weapon from nuclear fission is just a neutral, natural outcome of being a sentient species
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Same goes for vaccines.
No wonder you got the question wrong!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes. And?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Itβll be a neutral, natural outcome too when the people who suffered most from nuclear weapons eventually take their revenge + interest (using nuclear weapons).
There are groups on planet earth who are very committed and motivated to this! A clear fact that they are at work, since the original bomb holders are becoming a bit nervous and paranoid at world events. They expand control, hoping to find the attack before it happens. Good luck, search all over!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
How is developing a nuclear bomb not commendable, you silly cute twinks?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Irrelevant. The atom bomb was already being worked on and would have eventually been developed with or without his involvement.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Uh-huh, and who built it? Him and his team, so they deserve praise.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
btw I only voted that way for drama, as always Machiavellian is right
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You don't get to my position without feigning remorse.
It had to be done, but we allow others to save face by not revelling in it nor condemning/lauding the contributions of those who enabled it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're the first to get thrown into the meat grinder.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
How is creating a weapon that has the potential to destroy the Earth in any way commendable?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
*potential. Vaccines have the potential to cause harm too; therefore, they're not commendable. (You) =
Have fun celebrating the post-WW2 world of bigger wars, ya immoral nigro.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
How is it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More nukes --> less wars, less deaths.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I donβt care. Itβs a paradox. Death cult, when they feed into it theyβll get their hands caught into their own trap. More nukesβ> different kind of wars β> more deathsβ> more economic growth (which fights climate change) β> less human spirit β> zorg future
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Think of it in terms of risk (probability of bad event * "damage", such as lives lost). So far, nuclear armed countries haven't gone directly to war with each other, so it's panning out better than the pre-MAD world.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This isnβt the only measure of if things are going well. Itβs also no guarantee that the scenario would never will in the future.
The original vision of nukes was theyβd usher in total peace, hegemony, unity of people. That didnβt happen, so instead the cope version is just that the worst case scenario hasnβt happened (yet). Not as comforting as it could be!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
100s of million not dead over 80 years of post-WW2 battles among major powers is a much better tradeoff.
Nothing is guaranteed, so that's pointless.
Last paragraph is nonsense.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
We don't know that yet...
Nuclear annihilation is still a possibility
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
he didn't know that at the time
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
How long did Oppenheimer plan that sweet "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" line?
Chat GPT buys Oppenheimer's bullshit.
How long do you think Oppenheimer planned to say "I am death, the destroyer of worlds" to seem cool?
It is likely that Oppenheimer did not plan to say the phrase at all. He was reportedly quoting a line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, as he witnessed the first successful atomic bomb test in 1945. He was expressing his mixed feelings of awe and horror at the destructive power of nuclear weapons.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It is a pretty sweet quote.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Isn't a more accurate translation something along the lines of "I am time, that which makes death of all things?"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's a much cooler quote in general and a much more r-slurred one in this specific context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Well glad someone fixed it for him if that's the case.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
He also misquoted the line, which is I have become time, the destroyer of worlds.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Two weeks
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
IDIOT. It is ethical. Oppenheimer had no idea how the weapon was going to be used - he created it, and left it to the hands of the military to decide how to use it. He didn't kill anyone.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
NUMBNUTS. It is unethical. You say he didn't know how the weapon was going to be used, but he did - he knew it was going to be used to kill people. He enabled the government to use this weapon of mass destruction, and they did - the responsibility is solely upon him (and the other collaborators).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
it was extremely ethical because he did it for the US. if he was working for any other country it would be unethical and he should be put to death.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I will NEVER stop sperging on rdrama
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you on vacation right now?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
If Oppenheimer hadn't done this, the U.S. might have lost World War 2. So whether it was good or bad depends entirely on whether you think the Axis Powers or Allied Powers should have won. Personally, I'm glad the Allied Powers won so I think what Oppenheimer did was good. He was a bit of a neurodivergent r-slur though for somehow failing to foresee that the giant bomb he built might be used to bomb people. Who could ever have seen that coming?!?
"How could this happen?!?"
-J Robert Oppenheimer
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Oppenheimer was heavily involved in the Target Committee, which chose where the bombs would be dropped. He was actively involved with choosing to drop it on people.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/6.pdf
These are the minutes from one of their meetings and there is some wild shit in here.
Don't bomb those other cities. They aren't smart enough to appreciate their city evaporating.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wow, I learned something new today. Really makes his pearl-clutching seem more hypocritical, doesn't it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm surprised this talking point has lasted so many decades. Almost the entire Pacific war was fought in Japanese territory. Japanese cities were being bombed, American cities were not. The Japanese threat to the United States effectively ended after Pearl Harbor. By the war's end, America had all the leverage, and, the only question was just how total its victory would be. How could any plausible series of events after a nuke-less 1945 lead to a Japanese "victory?" Or are we simply defining an enemy victory as any time the US doesn't get to topple, occupy, and humiliate the country it's at war with?
In my eyes, simply containing Japan would have been preferable to either a long, bloody, invasion, or to mass bombing campaigns against cities, and I can't see a real reason not to opt for this other than nationalist fervor.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The "total victory" part is what is important here. The US wanted to end the war with Japan before the USSR could get involved and have part of Japan like they did in Germany. In the eyes of everyone important, the war was already over and it was just about keeping the Soviets out.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You don't think winning quickly and decisively through the use of a terror weapon has strategic value?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm saying the purpose of getting to unconditional surrender was ambiguous at best. "It was either nuke them or invade them" raises the question of why would you need to do either.
If you don't buy the need for unconditional surrender, then much of the money and lives spent for that end were wasted. The goal should have been securing American assets, territories, and military freedom of movement in the Pacific, and that was accomplished well before the endgame of the war.
Regardless of my peacemongering perspective, a lot of the initial postmortems of the war argued that Japan was already done, and they would have reached a total surrender in short order without either the nukes or an invasion.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Oh, OK, I see what you're saying. Although I do disagree with you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Why do you give us the reasoning for each answer along with each answer? Do you not understand the concept of people coming to the same conclusion in different ways?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Don't overthink it. A lot of people can't conceive of alternatives to their preferred moral framework, this is just to stimulate discussion
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm neutral
, but it is funny how he went all emo after dunking on the japs. Like what did he think was going to happen 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I'ma go with ethical on this one.
I'll leave out the ethics of using the bomb entirely because that's a whole different quagmire. Oppenheimer absolutely 100% knew what they were going to use the bomb for. I agree with the meme image that he shouldn't have signed up for the task if he had an ethical problem with it, and he shouldn't pretend he was surprised by the outcome.
However, if he hadn't participated someone else would have. The atom bomb was inevitable. Thus, his participation was ethically neutral, aside from being an annoying cute twink about it afterwards.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The ability of fission exists whether we harness it or not. It is only expected that you attempt to be equal in arms to your potential enemies
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
its unethical that he didnt use it on israel
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
If it wasn't him it'd be someone else.
Adm. Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy, expressed some regret later in life.
Rickover deserves his own effectpost, he would personally interview every officer for nuke school and would go out on every new nuclear submarine. He would make candidates stand in a closet for hours if they answered a question wrong during the interview and if they gave him pitted grapes on a sub he'd spit them out on the floor.
He's worth a Google if you've got time to kill and his first name is Hyman.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Very ethical. Developing technology is on average a benefit towards humanity, it also will happen regardless of your actions. Your personal involvement only effects when a technology is invented, not if it is invented, so any arguments concerning existential threats and infinite evil don't really apply.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They do apply because you are clinging to the
But it is not really a shield for doing things that are not acceptable. We would say a very different thing if it was the enemies who made the bomb first, and they used it to put us in our place. In that case, we would not say itβs so inevitable. It would be a case of crying and wailing at how this technology was developed which benefits nobody, only destroys. And we would need proportional revenge.
They are only considered to be on average a benefit to humanity if we do not consider that the enemies are a piece of humanity. Which is fair, I guess, but I see that as practically identical to the genocide mindset
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, it doesn't matter who develops the bomb. It is still an ethical act assuming the same conditions we applied here. Remember, you don't know what the bomb will do.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Nuclear bombs created peace between super powers that the world has never seen before.
Still a good chance someone eventually goes mad king and kills all of us but we would probably do it anyway without them.
Q.E.D. the temporary benefit is worth it as the ending consequences are inevitable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context