TEL AVIV—Deadly health epidemics deployed as a weapon against Palestinians. Nuclear bombs dropped on Gaza. These are just two of the latest proposals being put forward by influential figures inside and outside the Israeli government as ways to accelerate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war.
  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    1·
    11 months ago

    where you try to imply modern nuclear weapons are clean and pose little to no risk beyond that of conventional weapons

    I don’t. What I said is:

    1. Modern nuclear weapons are less dirty than the two used so far against any population.
    2. Israel might not care about the previous point, and actually prefer a dirty bomb.
    3. In modern nuclear weapons, the yield and area affected (both by the explosion, and by the fallout) can be controlled with high precision, starting at a level comparable to that of largest conventional weapons.
    4. The US honed that skill by turning nukes into a tourist attraction for its own citizens over 60 years ago.
    5. The city next to the area they used for that, not only still stands, but has flourished since.

    Again, feel free to quote any part of my comments if you think I said something different (don’t give me a chance to add “an edit timestamp”… 🙄) or if you just want to discuss it.

    PS: I will edit my comments if I feel it can make my point clearer, or if I change my mind, or even blank and delete them if I stop caring about anyone reading them (did that to close to 30K comments on Reddit already, and it’s not the first time; if you want to keep anything I’ve ever said, better make a copy while you can).

    • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.netEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      As for environment, the US nuked themselves over a thousand times, mostly on the Nevada desert. People in the 1950s used to go to Las Vegas to watch the explosions, nowadays they still go for the casinos, and that’s after many of the old dirtier bombs got exploded above ground…

      The US honed that skill by turning nukes into a tourist attraction for its own citizens over 60 years ago.

      Here you go, you revisionist, gaslighting piece of shit:

      The partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

      The fallout from atmospheric tests created a global health crisis. A 1961 study revealed that strontium-90, a radioactive isotope, was building up in the teeth of children living in the St. Louis, Missouri area, hundreds of miles away from the nearest nuclear test site in the Nevada desert. Efforts by thousands of scientists and the international public raised the alarm about contamination from atmospheric nuclear tests and urged global leaders to act.

      By 1963, the international community had negotiated the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits carrying out nuclear tests in any environment that would allow radioactive material to spread across a country’s borders, including atmospheric tests, underwater tests, and tests in outer space.

      The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty dramatically reduced and eventually ended atmospheric nuclear testing. But nuclear testing did not slow down. Instead, countries with nuclear weapons shifted to underground test sites.

      Just because a particular city nearby didn’t suffer the effects of fallout doesn’t mean it was under control and didn’t have horrific effects on people literally hundreds of miles away. You are literally just spewing “clean nukes” propaganda straight out of the playbook of the U.S. arms industry. Go fuck yourself.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        1·
        11 months ago

        over 60 years ago.

        By 1963

        It’s 2023, let’s see: 1963+60=?

        you revisionist, gaslighting piece of shit

        Go fuck yourself.

        Ok.