Ward Wilson - 5 Myths About Nuclear Weapons 

1 group of Small Hats reported on NUCKS in WWII...1 HAT TO SPOT ON

Even if everyone decided to get rid of them, countries would still keep a few just in case. . .And its that just in case that will mean they cannot be disposed of.

With the aim separating factum contra fictio; my wish is to conducting a meaningful investigation pertaining to the existence of nuclear bombs in their “generally believed capability” ; my humble analysis fails to prove sufficient evidence pointing to the existence of a single atomic explosion, leading me to agree with your definition that such a weapon may indeed be magical.

Back in the 80’s (I believe) a teenage Boy Scout built a real life, operational nuclear reactor in is mother’s garage!!!! Nukes will NEVER go away!!!

The speaker bases much of his argument on assertion, rather than facts. He displays a bar chart allegedly showing the declining credibility of nuclear weapons as a tool of statecraft, yet the chart is just something he created from whole cloth. No numbers, no data source provided. He just made up this seemingly impressive piece of nothing to buttress his assertions that nuclear weapons are increasingly useless in statecraft. Then he alleges that when the Japanese did not truly consider the nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when deciding to surrender, and points out the massive impact the entry of the USSR into the war against Japan had on the Japanese leadership, he states flatly that the Japanese were right in this analysis. Well, it was a stunning failure to grasp the reality and significance of nuclear weapons on the part of the Japanese leadership, and to say that this massive failure was "right is,, to say the least, a rather disingenuous statement by the speaker. He harps on the "one data point" of nuclear weapons use and its effect on a national leadership after being attacked with them, yet also goes on and on as to how nuclear weapons were not that much more effective against Japan than conventional bombing. Okay, then we can use the multiple data points from those conventional attacks and their effect upon the Japanese leadership to extrapolate the effect of nuclear weapons on a nations leadership after an attack with them. Either nuclear weapons are just "more of the same", which he argues, and therefore we have beau coup data points, ore they are unique in their effect and the Japanese were wrong in dismissing them. The speaker is arguing both sides of his contradiction are correct. An epic display of sloppy thinking. Then he comes to nuclear deterrence. He says deterrence works, but it is fallible because human beings are both inescapably fallible and inescapably part of the system of deterrence. As if either statement is anything surprising or new. Deterrence works on humans, and humans are fallible. Welcome to reality. If you attempt to get rid of nuclear weapons, to ban them, you are trapped in the same dilemma: you are banning humans from having nuclear weapons, you are depending on humans to enforce that ban, and humans are fallible. Welcome to reality. However, The speaker insists that nuclear weapons are clumsy and have no real use. Well, they are big and clumsy, but they can be used very effectively for two things, and the first is the reason for the second: Nuclear weapons can be used by some madman, a future "Hitler", to wipe another nation, its' people, off the face of the earth, Totally erase them. Yes, it would be madness to do so. Adolf Hitler planned to erase the USSR from the earth, including starving to death in cold blood about one hundred million citizens of the USSR in order to depopulate the land of the USSR so it could be settled by German immigrants. The plan was in the process of implementation, and was stopped only by the failure of the USSR to collapse in the face of Nazi aggression. If Hitler had had an arsenal of thermonuclear weapons, he could have erased the USSR in a day. The only way to stop a future Hitler from doing this is to have enough thermonuclear weapons of your own to present the future Hitler contemplating thermonuclear genocide with the certainty that his own society will also be erased if he follows his plan of action. Which world do you want, one with a fallible system of a nuclear weapons ban that if it fails has no way of preventing a genocidal madmen from acting on his insane impulses, or one in which a fallible but largely effectiveform of nuclear deterrence gives you a means of stopping nuclear madmen? The dilemma is that we must choose. Which poses the greater threat? Wilson avoids this question, to his immense discredit as an alleged speaker of truth to authority. Ward Wilson is presenting you with a classic sophistic "argument" from assertion and authority, with no real data to back up his assertions. It's a bit ironic he uses methods of argumentation that he himself attributes to proponents of nuclear weapons, and disparages as being a false narrative based on magical thinking.

(1) There is good evidence that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with incendiary bombs rather than nuclear bombs (i.e. no evacuation of Hiroshima/Nagasaki due to radiation, buildings and bridge still standing directly under supposed blast, no crater). (2) The film that we've seen of supposed nuclear explosions could have been faked with conventional explosives. (3) The US lost in Vietnam, nearly lost in Korea, and the Soviets lost in Afghanistan and the nuclear bomb was never used. (4) Since time immemorial rulers have tried to find clever ways to make their populations more dependant on and fearful of their leaders. Often historically common people were told that their rulers was actually a God. They can no longer trick US into believing that they are God's, but they can, by claiming to have nuclear weapons, deceive us into believing that they have godlike power. (5) Oppenheimer, upon supposedly creating the nuclear bomb. said "I am become Death, the destroyer of world's." Perhaps that was a hint as to their true intent? Here's some food for thought... "To know what you know, and to know what you do not know. That is true knowledge." -Confucius Logic was invented in ancient Greece circa 300 B.C. as a systematic method by which free Greeks could identify deliberate deception and/or errors in reasoning. Niether the Greeks nor, later, the Romans considered it wise to teach logic to common slaves, for obvious reasons. The teaching of classical logic was removed from the US public school system over 150 years ago for exactly the same reasons (check out John Gatto's book"Dumbing Us Down"' his "Ultimate History Lesson" on youtube, and "The Lost Tools of Learning" by Dorothy Sayers, google). The following is the essence of that ancient system of reasoning. "All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from preexistent knowledge." -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics Cogent (logical) reasoning, reasoning designed to strongly appeal to the intellect rather than the emotions, should meet three conditions: 1. It should begin with justified premises (true/factual propositions supported by solid verifiable evidence). 2. It should contain all of the relevant information (the suppression of relevant counterargument/evidence can be a very effective method of deception). 3. It should come to a valid conclusion (a conclusion which necessarily follows from the premises, is free of contradiction, and consistent with the facts). When an argument meets these three conditions it is said to be both valid and sound (both properly constructed and, having true premises, very likely to be true). When an argument does not meet these conditions it is said to be fallacious (faulty/deceptive reasoning). "Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." -George Bernard Shaw Now for a bit of rhetoric with the informal logical fallacy. Professor Madsen Pirie most aptly defines a logical fallacy as anything one can say or do that breaks down or subverts reason. The ancient Greeks identified over 200 different logical fallacies. Here are a few examples (better defined in the book ' The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric' by Sister Miriam Joseph PhD): 1. Argumentum ad hominem is the appeal to ridicule 2. Argumentum ad misericordiam is the appeal to pity. 3. Argumentum ad verecundiam is the appeal to authority. 4. Argumentum ad ignorantiam is the appeal to the ignorance of your audience. 5. Argumentum ad baculum is the appeal to force/threats. 6. Argumentum ad populum is the appeal to the passions/prejudices of the people. Etc. Therefore, when testing any argument one should ask if the three conditions of cogent reasoning have been met and if logical fallacies have been used. "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." -Rene Descartes Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 Missing Links Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College The Holocaust: Bishop Richard Williamson Germar Rudolf David McCalden David Cole/Stein Mark Weber Ernst Zundel Sylvia Stolz AIDS and HIV: Dr Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize Winner Dr Peter Duesberg Dr Robert Willner The Moon landing: 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon' by Bart Sibrel All on RU-vid

One thing to consider is that an invaded nation might seek to use tactical nuclear weapons on its own soil, thus avoiding any justifiable retaliation while devastating the reserves and logistics capability of the enemy.

Thank you! Cheers from Brazil :D

Undisclosed capability is available to a few of the dominating so & sos. Transfixing capers are the next stop!

Wasted half his talk expounding on how the Japanese thought nukes weren't that big of a deal. So what? It's possible to imagine particular delivery systems being rendered obsolete, but extremely powerful explosions (and the threat of them) will always have utility. Not sure that anyone is arguing that nukes are 'magic'. Deterrence is imperfect but given that it's the only defence against nuclear weapons, it will have to do. There are innumerable reasons why all world leaders aren't suddenly going to get together and decide 'nukes are dumb' and be rid of them. One of those reasons is in the preceding paragraph; big fucking explosions offer utility to politicians. Nuclear disarmament will not abolish interstate conflict, and sooner or later someone is going to reach for the advantage of being the first state to rearm. This is why it isn't 'irrelevant' that nuclear weapons can't be disinvented; without one world government, they will return. So why disarm, unless you plan to be the first to rearm?

The real purpose was always as a 'last retaliation' deterrence and that luckily never came up in the cold war, although Robocop jokes about it as a last stand threat from apartheid South Africa. Ironically the one instance where they may end up next being used (Israel vs an Islamic country) is one where the person on the losing side would think that it was worth the price for exterminating Israel. I agree with the obsolescence argument, if you took the cost of nuclear weapons and chucked it at laser technology, you'd quickly make them useless as a threat. I suspect when that technology arrives, things will change fast. I suspect the next nuclear war will not be global but either Middle East or India-Pakistan. Regardless, the research done on a small regional war still yields terrifying global consequences: far more people would die due to fallout and climate change induced crop failure than from the bombs themselves

a difference though is radiation induced illnesses. This is different from conventional weapons.

Of course we agree with the comments on perceptions, but the fact that the bombs are a million times more energetic and concentrated than hand-held weapons does not change the moral integrity required to not do harm, (first, do no harm!), requires self examination and interpersonal diplomatic consideration. "When all else fails", the ability to defend life in continuity with maximum effectiveness, makes the decision to use Nuclear Energy, the go-to solution. Natural Philosophy of metastable predator-prey imbalances, either resolves politically, or fast-slow destruction is inevitable, until there's nothing useful to defend. Look, listen, hear and see the bleeding obviousness of greed, contempt and indifference to self knowledge that covers up reality.