Oppenheimer

[exchemist]

I've heard both those theories about why Jews are over-represented in the sciences. Considering that we make up such a small percentage (0.2%) of the entire world's population, about 20% of Nobel Prize winners have been Jews.

I'm more inclined to go with the theory that this is because (as you wrote) "many Jewish communities encourage and foster pursuit of knowledge and intellect." There's an old Jewish joke that, when a Jewish child is born, his mother sees only three options for his future: 1. Doctor, 2. Lawyer, 3. Failure. I think that the "Tiger Moms" of the Asian community may be a reason why Asians exceed, as well.

I haven't yet seen Oppenheimer, and I may wait until it comes out on DVD. Movies about atomic bombs and their development kind make me queasy.

Re Asian Tiger mums, there were a lot of Asian and South Asian kids at my son's school and they used to joke about getting "Asian parented", which went something like this:

"What mark you get in maths test?"

"85%"

"Why you only get 85%? Why not 95% You bring disgrace to family. We make effort to send you to good school, you get 95% etc etc "

Poor kids. But they did do well........

 

[Debater Slayer]

I didn't like the idea of sex scenes at first, then it became worse with adultery, so I'd rather watch the censored Arab version.

I didn't feel like watching the censored version made me miss anything pertinent to the story.

Barbie is completely off the list.

What about it? It has no sex scenes, from what I've read, although it apparently has a lot of sexual jokes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I actually think that, at least in hindsight, it was a net positive that the Soviet Union developed atomic weapons when it did and the US and its allies didn't end up with a monopoly on the technology, with a consequently unparalleled military advantage over other global powers. If the existence of WMDs is inevitable, it seems to me that mutual deterrence is far preferable to unilateral possession thereof.

The MAD strategy has big risks.
If USSR didn't have nukes, the cold war might've
been lessened, & the several incidents of almost
going to full blown nuclear war could've been
avoided. You're welcome to prefer MAD.
I don't.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The MAD strategy has big risks.
If USSR didn't have nukes, the cold war might've
been lessened, & the several incidents of almost
going to full blown nuclear war could've been
avoided. You're welcome to prefer MAD.

In an ideal world, I wouldn't "prefer MAD [meaning mutual deterrence]"; I would prefer that all countries dismantled WMDs. Given our world and the fact that WMDs already exist, however, I just see mutual deterrence as the lesser evil.

I wouldn't trust the US and its allies, nor China or any other country, to act responsibly as the world's sole owners of nuclear arms.

 

[Revoltingest]

In an ideal world, I wouldn't "prefer MAD [meaning mutual deterrence]"; I would prefer that all countries dismantled WMDs. Given our world and the fact that WMDs already exist, however, I just see mutual deterrence as the lesser evil.

I wouldn't trust the US and its allies, nor China or any other country, to act responsibly as the world's sole owners of nuclear arms.

I'd trust USA to be the sole owner of nukes
more than I trust their widespread ownership
with MAD as the restraining mechanism.
We're just lucky that your preference (for the
real world) didn't escalate to thermonuclear
war on so many occasions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'd trust USA to be the sole owner of nukes
more than I trust their widespread ownership
with MAD as the restraining mechanism.
We're just lucky that your preference (for the
real world) didn't escalate to thermonuclear
war on so many occasions.

Nukes are currently too widespread for my liking (e.g., owned by North Korea and Israel and apparently coveted by Iran, while also being used as a tool of pressure by Putin), but I don't think ownership thereof would have to be unilateral if fewer countries had them. Just two or three global powers could create a balance by having them and not letting anyone else obtain them. That's close to what has happened in reality, too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nukes are currently too widespread for my liking (e.g., owned by North Korea and Israel and apparently coveted by Iran, while also being used as a tool of pressure by Putin), but I don't think ownership thereof would have to be unilateral if fewer countries had them. Just two or three global powers could create a balance by having them and not letting anyone else obtain them. That's close to what has happened in reality, too.

5 Times Russia and America Almost Nuked Each Other (And Started World War III)

The end of world...almost.

nationalinterest.org

 

[Debater Slayer]

5 Times Russia and America Almost Nuked Each Other (And Started World War III)

The end of world...almost.

nationalinterest.org

I'm aware that mutual deterrence has major downsides. As I said, I see it as a lesser evil, not as a good thing.

If only one country had nukes, do you think any other country would be able to successfully negotiate reasonable compromises with it instead of merely being pushed around or forced to make major, one-sided concessions during larger disputes?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm aware that mutual deterrence has major downsides. As I said, I see it as a lesser evil, not as a good thing.

That's where we disagree.
Your scenario, ie, USA as sole nuclear power
vs distributed nuclear weapons with MAD.
I prefer the former. You prefer the latter.

If only one country had nukes, do you think any other country would be able to successfully negotiate reasonable compromises with it instead of merely being pushed around or forced to make major, one-sided concessions during larger disputes?

Yes. Conventional warfare is still a powerful tool
& threat, as Putin & others are discovering.

 

[Rival]

What about it? It has no sex scenes, from what I've read, although it apparently has a lot of sexual jokes.

Just don't like the sound of it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Just don't like the sound of it.

Oh, okay. I read the rest of your post in the context of the comment about the sex scenes in Oppenheimer, so I was a bit confused because I know Barbie has none.

Personally, I doubt I'll go to the theater again anytime soon unless a really, really good horror movie comes out. Experiencing supernatural horror in IMAX is on my bucket list.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's where we disagree.
Your scenario, ie, USA as sole nuclear power
vs distributed nuclear weapons with MAD.
I prefer the former. You prefer the latter.

Well, in any case, I don't think the US could have managed to prevent the technology from being leaked sooner or later, realistically speaking—much less throughout the several decades since the creation of the bomb. Most likely, other powers were going to obtain that information from the US or figure out how to make nuclear weapons at some point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, in any case, I don't think the US could have managed to prevent the technology from being leaked sooner or later, realistically speaking—much less throughout the several decades since the creation of the bomb. Most likely, other powers were going to obtain that information from the US or figure out how to make nuclear weapons at some point.

Of course.
Efforts to limit nukes have fared poorly.

 

[exchemist]

I'm aware that mutual deterrence has major downsides. As I said, I see it as a lesser evil, not as a good thing.

If only one country had nukes, do you think any other country would be able to successfully negotiate reasonable compromises with it instead of merely being pushed around or forced to make major, one-sided concessions during larger disputes?

The argument is a bit silly in any case. The Russians were pretty good, scientifically, and they would have got there on their own fairly fast, even without any help from spying. So there is no scenario in which only the USA was going to have the atom bomb. What one could argue about, perhaps, is whether it would have better for the world if the USSR's access to atomic bombs had been delayed by, say, 5 years at most. I'm not sure I could answer that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The argument is a bit silly in any case. The Russians were pretty good, scientifically, and they would have got there on their own fairly fast, even without any help from spying. So there is no scenario in which only the USA was going to have the atom bomb. What one could argue about, perhaps, is whether it would have better for the world if the USSR's access to atomic bombs had been delayed by, say, 5 years at most. I'm not sure I could answer that.

Agreed, especially on the point that it was basically impossible to permanently prevent the development of nuclear weapons by other powers.