/sci/ - Science & Math

rrr

>Inb4 1304 posts and 97 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view a troll thread.
Imokwiththis.jpg
Every country have the right to start their nuclear program, do research and funeling money to science without being called off by half of the world.
Peaceful or not, I couldn't care less.

Finally a country puts some real focus on nuclear energy.
Granted the first world would sooner trust Russia to pioneer the field but whatev's.

>>2514925
I do not believe that every individual has the right to have a nuclear weapon. Consequently, it follows that it's reasonable to discuss whether a country has an inalienable right to a nuclear weapon. I again think that it does not.

There's a reason for the IAEA inspections and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - so you can have your nuclear programs while giving good evidence to the rest of the world that you're not building nukes. Iran has thus far said "fuck you" to the IAEA.

>>2514962
Iran launches a nuke they declare war on every first world country in the world.

Whom also have nukes, much more than Iran.

I wouldn't worry too much about them.

>>2514986
What's Whom?

And sorry, I worry when people with apocalyptic religious world views possess the means to kill millions of people.

It's not just the killing of millions of people. Just try to imagine the chaos if a single nuke went off in a large American city, and then it became publicly known that the people who claimed responsibility said they have hidden another nuke in another American city? The whole US would be shut down overnight.

No. Iran doesn't get nukes.

>>2514993
>What's Whom?
Ah, you mean the first world countries have more nukes. Again, I'd like to avoid the end of civilization as we know it.

>White people have nuclear program = fine
>Non-white people have nuclear program = not fine

hurr

>>2514996
It's not white vs non-white. It's sensible people who let IAEA inspections. It's sensible people who are trying to reduce their nuclear stockpiles to prevent inadvertent nuclear war or lost nuclear material. It's people who don't have the view that the messiah is coming in the near future and the end times are at hand.

And on the other side it's the crazy religious fuckers who are trying to gain nuclear weapons when they had none, and refusing to co-operate with the IAEA.

>>2514999
Your argument would make sense if not for the fact that America, a warmongering nation full of fanatics with little regard for international institution, has nukes.

>>2515004
>It's sensible people who are trying to reduce their nuclear stockpiles to prevent inadvertent nuclear war or lost nuclear material. It's people who don't have the view that the messiah is coming in the near future and the end times are at hand.

So, it really comes down to this: I trust America more, even /GW Bush/ more, to not start a nuclear war or lose a nuclear warhead than I trust Iran's current leaders.

I also like the idea that if you don't have nukes now, you don't ever get them, under the condition that the current nuke holders slowly lower their stockpiles, which they are doing.

>>2515017
>I also like the idea that if you don't have nukes now, you don't ever get them

Let me guess, your country does have nukes.

>>2515027
Yep.

I did explicitly state that I trust certain countries more than other countries, and I want there to eventually be basically little to no deployed warheads, so my current policy preferences are in line with this reasoning. Got a problem?

>>2515031
Yes.

First, MAD is the only thing keeping us from major global warfare.
Second, you are a proponent of foreign interference in internal affairs of a country.

>mfw I'm American and I would love for Iran to attack us with a nuclear weapon.

>Curtis_LeMay.jpg

>>2515036
>First, MAD is the only thing keeping us from major global warfare.
Not really. Even if it is, I think that my life is more at risk from stray nuclear shit, especially if we start proliferating.

>Second, you are a proponent of foreign interference in internal affairs of a country.
Yes I am. I've been very explicit about this. Apparently you have a problem with it. My reply to your insanity, stupidity, and naivete is "suck it".

Besides, if I'm wrong, what's the harm to Iran? Basically none. What's the harm to me if I'm right and Iran gets a nuke and uses it? Shittons. Seems like a simple decision to me.

>>2515036
Oh, that and trade.

My opinion on the whole thing is that if Iran IS actually developing nuclear weapons, they wish to do so simply so they do not get invaded by America. Which is actually a fairly logical course of action.

>>2515060
Except that they're much more likely to get invaded by developing the nukes than if they never bothered. I know Israel isn't going to sit by happily either, and unlike Iran currently, they do have nukes. It's a stupid decision made at the cost of the Iranian people for the benefit of its rulers. Well, that should be obvious, considering that it's a totalitarian dictatorship nowadays and nowhere near a democracy nor democratic republic.

>>2515066

>implying democracy is superior

>>2515072
Well, that's sort of orthogonal to my reasoning to actively interfere in Iran's internal affairs, in order to prevent them from getting nukes. Just want to be clear on this point. It's rather important I think.

Second, yes I am implying that democratic republics are better than totalitarian dictatorships.

>>america
>>invade
>>muslim country
yeah, seeing how the last invasion worked soooo well for them

>>2515066
>Except that they're much more likely to get invaded by developing the nukes than if they never bothered.
Yeaaaaah no. The media/Fox News would still eventually start painting them in a 'terrorist' light and you guys would be there before 2020.

>>2515072
>implying communicm is better alternative

>>2515076
China's growth rate would like to have a word with you

>>2515084
Meh. Unlikely I think. The American people can only put up with so many bullshit wars. I think we've had our fill.

>>2515088
Are you implying the economically better = better? Because you would be a retard or evil.

>>2515048
>Yes I am.

No wonder, it's your fucking fascist country that does all the interference. You must be American, only Americans are this brainwashed.

>>2515084
Yes, brilliant, if only Fox News didn't exist then there would never be wars. How erudite.

>>2515099
Support for them would be less, I would think.

>>2515097
Everyone is a proponent of interfering in the affairs of a country when that country's affairs could lead to nuclear holocaust.

Or you're an apathetic fool who thinks that "Peace in our time" was the quote of the 20th century.

>>2515091
I'd beg to differ
>>Korea
>>Vietnam
>>Gulf War I and II
>>Afghanistan
>>Iraq

American people have been fooled by their governments again and again.
Fool me once....
Fool me twice...
Fool me six times....
it's not that unlikely

>>2515097
>Trying to prevent global thermonuclear war.
>Be called a fascist
Stay classy /sci/.

>Iran builds nuclear fusion reactor
>builds nuclear fusion reactor
>fusion reactor

>>2515102
Sorry, I meant the current American population. Obviously wait a generation and it can happen again. Not in 10 years though.

>>2515100
Oh, of course, because it's not as though anyone in history has ever gone to war prior to that.

And I mean, golly, it's not like there were any civilizations where the citizens voted for 20 years solid to continue fighting a losing war that was sapping their civilization to the brink, and the people who were voting to continue the war were the soldiers who were dying by the thousands. No sir, never has happened, war only exists because of Fox News.

(And those were the Athenians)

>>2515105
It's not a power plant. Don't worry about it. It's a research reactor.

MFW I realise sci is full of retards that don't know the difference between fusion and fission...

>>2515108
I said media/Fox News. This would imply that though all media may contribute, recently Fox News is the most vocal. Stop being a goddamn ninny.

>>2515108
>>2515117
Sadly, I really have to agree with Inurdaes on this one. Stop being a dick anon.

>>2515117
>Fox News causes wars
That's still all you're saying and it's completely moronic.
Let's consider: Fox News' viewers consist of 0.0033% of the population of America.

Yeah....

>>2515105

It's not that hard. The trick is developing a reactor with net energy production.

However, there are a lot of neat things you can do with fusion, even if you don't get net energy production from fusion alone. Fusion produces a lot of neutrons, which can be used in transmutation, as is mentioned in this case.

Fusion neutrons are also of sufficient energy to induce fission in non-fissile isotopes, or in a sub-critical assembly. There is a lot more immediate potential for mixed fusion-fission reactors than a energy producing, pure fusion reactor, which may not ever be economical even if it were eventually made possible.

>>2515124
>Fox News' viewers consist of 0.0033% of the population of America.
Only in my dreams anon.

>>2515130
>It's not that hard

>>2515134
Perfect response.

>>2515133
Actually it's 0.02%

~ 7 million viewers

out of

~ 350 million people

>>2515139
>7 million people
That's like a third of the population of Australia

Big enough for me

>>2515133
You'll love this
>In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[38][39] Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only channel to score a net positive in that regard, with a +12%. CNN scored second in the poll with 39% of those polled stating that they trusted the news channel, and 41% stating distrust, a -2% net score.[40]

And before you ask

>Public Policy Polling (PPP) is an American Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[1][2][3]

>>2515139
>>2515139
>>2515139
lol at fail percentages 7/350*100=2%

>>2515139
>7 million
>350 million
>0.02%
mfw

>>2515152
I'm allowed a retard moment, blow me, point still stands, it's a marginal fraction of the population of a country.

More people than that think Starcraft is a sport.

1. Iran gets nukes
2. Iran develops Orion starship
3. Islamic paradise on the Moon

>>2515230

>>2515230
First of all, in which direction do you pray if, say, you were on the moon, or on Mars, or something? Obviously the standard compass "pray towards the direction you would have to walk to get to Mecca" thing doesn't hold anymore. Would you have to keep track of where Earth was and pray towards that? How specific do you need to be with your angles?

Next is, how do you keep track of your "daily" and "weekly" rituals when you are no-longer on a planet, and day/night cycles no-longer apply, nor does any conventional calendar system. This gets fairly complicated when you factor in interstellar travel, because of relative time. If you tried to simply synchronize your festivals with Earth time, you would quickly lose synchronization, and you can NEVER say that things are happening simultaneously with very distant objects. Would planetary systems be forced to have "local Islamic calendars" for things like Ramadan, that were more or less arbitrarily agreed upon?

Finally, how does praying work when you're in some sort of orbital that has funky day/night cycles. So, if the sun was rising every 2 hours or so, would you still need to pray when it rose and set, and would you be required to fit your other prayers in-between then?
So I was thinking about the "does traditional Islamic prayer imply a flat Earth" thread, and some other questions formed in my mind. First of all, in which direction do you pray if, say, you were on the moon, or on Mars, or something? Obviously the standard compass "pray towards the direction you would have to walk to get to Mecca" thing doesn't hold anymore. Would you have to keep track of where Earth was and pray towards that? How specific do you need to be with your angles? Next is, how do you keep track of your "daily" and "weekly" rituals when you are no-longer on a planet, and day/night cycles no-longer apply, nor does any conventional calendar system. This gets fairly complicated when you factor in interstellar travel, because of relative time. If you tried to simply synchronize your festivals with Earth time, you would quickly lose synchronization, and you can NEVER say that things are happening simultaneously with very distant objects. Would planetary systems be forced to have "local Islamic calendars" for things like Ramadan, that were more or less arbitrarily agreed upon? Finally, how does praying work when you're in some sort of orbital that has funky day/night cycles. So, if the sun was rising every 2 hours or so, would you still need to pray when it rose and set, and would you be required to fit your other prayers in-between then?

Finally, how does praying work when you're in some sort of orbital that has funky day/night cycles. So, if the sun was rising every 2 hours or so, would you still need to pray when it rose and set, and would you be required to fit your other prayers in-between then?

>>2515278
These are questions for Islamic Scholars. A couple of fatwas should settle this.

>>2514925

>HURR EVERY COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE NUKES EVEN THEOCRACIES FOLLOWING TEXTS THAT ADVOCATE DESTROYING UNBELIVERS

Yeah, no.