[Pete Svarrior]

How many posts has Rushy spent defending his idiotic claim?

You keep claiming it's idiotic; meanwhile, the strongest arguments you guys have so far is AATW's "if someone claims they saw a thing, and I think that thing is real, then that's credible... but if I don't think it's real, then that's not a good argument".

Now, markjo, you know I adore you, but please take your "BAWWW THREAD BAD" posts where they belong.

[stack]

Nice strawman.

You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."

Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery.  Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...

It's not a strawman, it's pointing out that treaties are meaningless. The tests stopped because governments knew it's too difficult to lie about them in $current_year. They are better off just saying "noooo we don't test anything anymore". Treaties don't mean anything to anyone and bringing them up is quite frankly hilarious.

After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.

Witlf?

How, pray tell, does concocting a lie in order to cover the original lie, go against or negate his argument?

Because the quote was, "...treaties are meaningless...Treaties don't mean anything to anyone". Rushy's stance is that nations got together and concocted a "treaty" to lie. If treaties are meaningless then how has the treaty to lie been maintained if they are meaningless and don't mean anything to anyone?

[stack]

After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.

The requirements for keeping up the act extended beyond their ability to do so. If you fire off a "nuke" in today's society, some university student's shitty cubesat is now high enough resolution to call bullshit on it (which is why it now very mysteriously doesn't happen!). Like I said before, it's similar to how haunted houses are allergic to smartphones.

University student's had access to shitty cubesats back in 1996 when the treaty was signed? Btw, the last atmospheric nuke test was in 1962.

And if the 1996 nuclear testing treaty was a lie and treaties are meaningless, how has it been maintained for 20+ years?

[Rushy]

Because the quote was, "...treaties are meaningless...Treaties don't mean anything to anyone". Rushy's stance is that nations got together and concocted a "treaty" to lie. If treaties are meaningless then how has the treaty to lie been maintained if they are meaningless and don't mean anything to anyone?

The point was that treaties are only binding as long as nations think they have something to benefit from them. What precisely is the benefit of not testing your very own nuclear weapons on your own soil? If these weapons were really life and death defense mechanisms, shouldn't they be tested more often? Wouldn't you like them tested more often? If Russia wants to glass America, shouldn't America be a little more confident in the reliability of their defenses? Really makes you think.

After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.

The requirements for keeping up the act extended beyond their ability to do so. If you fire off a "nuke" in today's society, some university student's shitty cubesat is now high enough resolution to call bullshit on it (which is why it now very mysteriously doesn't happen!). Like I said before, it's similar to how haunted houses are allergic to smartphones.

University student's had access to shitty cubesats back in 1996 when the treaty was signed? Btw, the last atmospheric nuke test was in 1962.

And if the 1996 nuclear testing treaty was a lie and treaties are meaningless, how has it been maintained for 20+ years?

The cubesat is just an example... What is it about RE'ers and their inability to grasp the conceptual meaning behind a statement versus its literal meaning? Do you not read literature or something?

No one really cares if you believe or not.

I see, that's why people keep making long winded posts trying to tell me I'm wrong for believing what I do. You obviously care, Ron, or else you'd just not respond at all. By the way, where's the evidence I asked for? You don't have any, do you? Weird!

All the evidence you need is out there.  I have it, but you don't want it. No need for you to do any work because you don't wish to believe anyway. For you, ignorance is bliss.  I'm happy that you're happy!

You asked for my standard of evidence, then instead of providing it (you can't, haha, isn't that funny?) you instead choose to say it exists *somewhere*, just not here. Magical.

Here's the thing Ron, you don't have any evidence. You incorrectly believed something because people keep telling you it exists. Now you're upset, but instead of admitting you have no evidence, you just bury your head in the sand. Sad!

[AATW]

Obviously I was joking.

Yes. As always when you say something mind-numbingly stupid, you were obviously joking.

Well...yeah.
It was obvious from the context of the thread in which I've posted multiple pieces of evidence for nuclear weapons existing to which Rushy has shouted "FAAAKE!" without providing a scrap of evidence. You really think that I believe the real clincher for Rushy would be someone on the internet saying that've seen one and that they are "pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end". That post might as well have said that they're black and round and have the words "NuClEaR BoMb!1!!" on them.
Roundy's post asking if anyone had seen one wasn't serious - as is obvious from some of the replies which have been booted to CN - and neither was mine.

That's also why you defended your claim several times.

I didn't make a claim. What I responded to was Rushy's false equivalence.

but you can show them a kangaroo pretty easily.

Sure. And I can equally easily bend over backwards to call them fake - say they're animatronic or whatever.
That's all Rushy's done in this thread. He's dismissed the testimony of Hiroshima survivors.
He's either ignored the evidence about radiation or shown such ignorance of how radiation works that he is hard to take seriously. All this thread shows is that you can believe, or refuse to believe, pretty much anything if you ignore or dismiss as fake all the evidence which shows you to be wrong. That's all that's going on in this thread.

This is unlike aliens, which are pretty hard to show to others, or nukes, which are apparently even harder.

Sure, but aliens - in the little green man sense, the ones who are visiting us - is not something which everyone believes in. Nuclear weapons...well, I don't think most people would even describe that as a belief any more than people would say they "believe" in kangaroos. Kangaroos just...exist, as do nuclear weapons. The existence on neither of these things is controversial in a way that little green men visiting us is.

"This Argument That's Currently Ongoing Does Not Exist" - AATW, unironically.

It's a complete nonsense argument, which is where this thread belongs. It's an argument from incredulity followed by a Monty Python Argument Sketch of basically ignoring or dismissing all the evidence he's shown while providing none himself. Culminating in him saying, having been shown a bunch of evidence for nuclear weapons:

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

Come on. This is surely a troll. The above post is Bishopian. A lot of threads with him go like that:

I don't believe X
Here's a bunch of evidence for X
That's all fake. See! There's no evidence! You keep saying you have some but you can't provide it!

There are lots of things in life which we don't or can't have direct experience of. With those things we have to form a view based on evidence. I've never been to Australia but obviously I believe in Australia - I know people from there, I've seen photos and video, I know people who have visited. Is it possible that they're all lying and all the photos and video are fake? In the strictest sense I guess it is. But by that metric how do you really ever know anything?

I hope I never have any direct experience of nuclear weapons, but the evidence they exist is overwhelming.
They're based on physics which is well understood, they've been used in wartime within living memory and there's plenty of film and witnesses to the subsequent tests and a radiation signature which is not found in conventional weapons.
All Rushy's got is a combination of incredulity and claims that if they did exist then <these things> would happen.
But those things are just his opinion, they're not evidence of anything. He's provided no evidence of fakery, no explanation for the radiation stuff other than untrue claims about how Hiroshima should be a glow in the dark nuclear wasteland. If he can't be bothered to look up this stuff and understand why that isn't true then how can he or this thread be taken seriously?

[Pete Svarrior]

Sure, but aliens - in the little green man sense, the ones who are visiting us - is not something which everyone believes in.

You have a strong tendency to describe things you personally believe as things "everyone" believes in. But, of course, that is just a funny joke you're making, and not yet another instance of your character flaws obscuring your ability to think.

The existence on neither of these things is controversial in a way that little green men visiting us is.

To you, and to people you choose to associate with. Then again, you are clearly just joking.

It's a complete nonsense argument, which is where this thread belongs.

To describe your reasoning as "circular" would be an understatement at this point. It's the Ourobouros of logic. You think the thread is bad, and you're so invested in it that you can't even express a coherent thought. Go touch grass, my dude.

I believe in Australia - I know people from there, I've seen photos and video

That's great. So, other than the complete lack of a response, what's the problem with Rushy's request for a reasonable, unedited video? You're acting as if it wasn't made.

You're specifically presenting a video as a standard of evidence you'd consider sensible. So, what gives? Is this another one of your knee-slappers?

If he can't be bothered to look up this stuff and understand why that isn't true then how can he or this thread be taken seriously?

Feel free to not take it seriously and go somewhere else. If you're gonna shit up a thread just because you don't like it, though, that's gonna be a problem.

[GoldCashew]

Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?

Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?

Why are you referencing clean coal / how do you know clean coal exists?

Can you prove it doesn't?

Clean coal doesn't exist. It never has.

"Clean coal" was a term developed by government agencies to help further line the pockets of big oil and the inside government agencies that work with them.

You have been told and convinced about clean coal and its various benefits.

[markjo]

Markjo the nuclear physicist, everyone! He understands nuclear bombs and reactors. You don't. Bow to his knowledge (which isn't just obvious ignorance!). Markjo, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about, can you stop pretending you do? Why embarrass yourself like this?

Actually, the physics behind nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs really isn't that hard.  The engineering and construction are the hard parts.

[stack]

Because the quote was, "...treaties are meaningless...Treaties don't mean anything to anyone". Rushy's stance is that nations got together and concocted a "treaty" to lie. If treaties are meaningless then how has the treaty to lie been maintained if they are meaningless and don't mean anything to anyone?

The point was that treaties are only binding as long as nations think they have something to benefit from them. What precisely is the benefit of not testing your very own nuclear weapons on your own soil? If these weapons were really life and death defense mechanisms, shouldn't they be tested more often? Wouldn't you like them tested more often? If Russia wants to glass America, shouldn't America be a little more confident in the reliability of their defenses? Really makes you think.

There have been 2056 nuke bomb tests. How many more would you prefer?

Yes it does make one think that the benefit is to limit the amout of harmful fallout in the atmosphere, underwater, and in the ground.

After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.

The requirements for keeping up the act extended beyond their ability to do so. If you fire off a "nuke" in today's society, some university student's shitty cubesat is now high enough resolution to call bullshit on it (which is why it now very mysteriously doesn't happen!). Like I said before, it's similar to how haunted houses are allergic to smartphones.

University student's had access to shitty cubesats back in 1996 when the treaty was signed? Btw, the last atmospheric nuke test was in 1962.

And if the 1996 nuclear testing treaty was a lie and treaties are meaningless, how has it been maintained for 20+ years?

The cubesat is just an example... What is it about RE'ers and their inability to grasp the conceptual meaning behind a statement versus its literal meaning? Do you not read literature or something?

What you're writing here is literature?

[RonJ]

No one really cares if you believe or not.

I see, that's why people keep making long winded posts trying to tell me I'm wrong for believing what I do. You obviously care, Ron, or else you'd just not respond at all. By the way, where's the evidence I asked for? You don't have any, do you? Weird!

All the evidence you need is out there.  I have it, but you don't want it. No need for you to do any work because you don't wish to believe anyway. For you, ignorance is bliss.  I'm happy that you're happy!

You asked for my standard of evidence, then instead of providing it (you can't, haha, isn't that funny?) you instead choose to say it exists *somewhere*, just not here. Magical.

Here's the thing Ron, you don't have any evidence. You incorrectly believed something because people keep telling you it exists. Now you're upset, but instead of admitting you have no evidence, you just bury your head in the sand. Sad!

All the evidence I have is useless to you because you choose ignorance over knowledge.  Why try to feed a dead horse?  You say that I don't have any evidence, what's your evidence that indicates that? 

[Kokorikos]

For the record, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty of 1996 is not into force yet.

[stack]

Good point. A little more info:

Since the conclusion and opening for signature of the CTBT, nuclear testing has become taboo. Today, even those nuclear-armed states that have not signed or not ratified the CTBT, including India, Israel, and Pakistan, observe nuclear testing moratoriums. Only one country has conducted nuclear test explosions in this century, and even that country—North Korea—halted nuclear testing in 2017. Although the CTBT has not formally entered into force, the treaty has, for now, achieved its primary goal: ending nuclear weapon test explosions.

[Kokorikos]

Good point. A little more info:

Since the conclusion and opening for signature of the CTBT, nuclear testing has become taboo. Today, even those nuclear-armed states that have not signed or not ratified the CTBT, including India, Israel, and Pakistan, observe nuclear testing moratoriums. Only one country has conducted nuclear test explosions in this century, and even that country—North Korea—halted nuclear testing in 2017. Although the CTBT has not formally entered into force, the treaty has, for now, achieved its primary goal: ending nuclear weapon test explosions.

This is correct.

Also, regarding the motive for signing such a treaty, the treaty has been signed by lots of countries that do not have nuclear weapons yet so the big powers would push for it because it guarantees that they are the only ones that do have such weapons.

Edit: Just rephrased it for clarity

[AATW]

Sure, but aliens - in the little green man sense, the ones who are visiting us - is not something which everyone believes in.

You have a strong tendency to describe things you personally believe as things "everyone" believes in.

Do I? I mean, I've said on here I'm a Christian. In this country that puts me very much in the minority. So no, not really.
I think I've got a pretty good handle on what things are fringe views, what things are pretty much universally accepted and which are matters of debate.

what's the problem with Rushy's request for a reasonable, unedited video?

No problem at all. I don't know if such video exists, but given the level of evidence he has already rejected I'd wonder why that would tip the balance given that "we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered".

As I said, it just doesn't feel like Rushy is arguing in good faith here, especially when he says he is asserting "there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide)." in a thread in which he has been presented a load of evidence and called it all fake without providing any evidence of that.

[Tom Bishop]

As I said, it just doesn't feel like Rushy is arguing in good faith here, especially when he says he is asserting "there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide)." in a thread in which he has been presented a load of evidence and called it all fake without providing any evidence of that.

It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.

[markjo]

It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.

If that's so, then why is Rushy asking us for evidence?  Haven't the nuclear powered militaries already provided sufficient evidence.  Shouldn't the ample documentation of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable person?

[Tom Bishop]

It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.

If that's so, then why is Rushy asking us for evidence?  Haven't the nuclear powered militaries already provided sufficient evidence.  Shouldn't the ample documentation of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable person?

Yes, the nuclear power militaries have provided a sufficient amount evidence for the existence of nuclear weapons. They have not provided evidence that they are honest about their evidence, however. For that you only have blind belief.

[markjo]

It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.

If that's so, then why is Rushy asking us for evidence?  Haven't the nuclear powered militaries already provided sufficient evidence.  Shouldn't the ample documentation of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable person?

Yes, the nuclear power militaries have provided a sufficient amount evidence for the existence of nuclear weapons. They have not provided evidence that they are honest about their evidence, however. For that you only have blind belief.

So I suppose that all of the lawsuits and government payouts to people who developed cancer from the radioactive fallout from the nuclear bomb tests are part of the cover story too.
https://www.courthousenews.com/downwinder-with-cancer-sues-usa-for-atomic-tests/
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/fallout-from-nuclear-weapons-tests-and-cancer-risks
https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca

[Tom Bishop]

Traditional bombs also contaminate the battlefield and also cause cancer - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23779497.2017.1369358

[markjo]

Traditional bombs also contaminate the battlefield and also cause cancer - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23779497.2017.1369358

So now you're denying that radioactive fallout was found downwind of the nuclear bomb test sites?