Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 26 2018, @01:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the better-read-this-VERY-quickly dept.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) has set the Doomsday Clock to "two minutes to midnight" to reflect fears of a nuclear confrontation with North Korea, as well as the failure of world leaders to address climate change and other factors. The clock is now set as close to doomsday as it was in 1953:

The team of scientists singled out a series of nuclear tests by North Korea. They dramatically escalated tensions on the Korean peninsula and led to a war of words between North Korea and the US.

The BAS also referred to a new US nuclear strategy that was expected to call for more funding to expand the role of the country's nuclear arsenal. Rising tension between Russia and the West was also a contributing factor.

The "weakening of institutions" around the world in dealing with major global threats - including climate change - was another major concern, the scientists said. They also mentioned US President Donald Trump's "unpredictability", pointing to his often controversial tweets and statements.

We're back, baby!


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday January 26 2018, @02:35PM (5 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Friday January 26 2018, @02:35PM (#628267)

    Does it? Or does it only guarantee you the right to posses a bears forelimbs?

    Seriously though, I have heard that 4-inch cannons are supposed to be protected.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @04:56PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @04:56PM (#628333)

    the framers said in their letters that it meant arms "of current military and police use"[paraphrased from memory]. basically, the whole point of the 2nd amendment was that the people should have the same weapons as the government so that if the gov got out of control the people could overthrow them. hunting and whatnot was just expected.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Friday January 26 2018, @08:38PM (2 children)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @08:38PM (#628502)

      There's a whole wikipedia article on the topic.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

      Something to bear in mind is the law is not a math proof and is closer to a religious document such that if your religious founding document clearly states "no gays" there will none the less be people who want gay marriage who will stand on their head and cross their eyes and read it backward if necessary to accomplish wish fulfillment via extremely obscure interpretation. Just saying, the law as implemented historically or today doesn't have to make much sense internally self consistently. Its not a quantum field theory, for example, if it doesn't make sense that doesn't mean its going to be ignored, that just means its a shitty law.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller [wikipedia.org]

      Miller is a classic example of the above where the court (ironically technically incorrectly, which is kinda funny) decided a certain weapon was not really a militia/infantry weapon so it was unprotected, but its wishy washy and everyone on every side simultaneously quotes it as both a win AND as a loss so its a good example of reality not meaning very much.

      I'll toss an idea into the ring that the 2nd permits normal individual infantry-type personally issued equipment aka bearing of militia arms, which is a pretty common interpretation historically as per the wiki article. Aside from historical anomalies like the Davey Crockett it would be highly unusual to issue a nuke to an E-1 private to use when and where as he sees fit; just following orders weapons like a B-2 or ICBM or a nuclear sub are legally quite a bit different than "here's your personal M16 use it wisely". In that way bringing it all the way back up to OPs original comment, it would be very normal for civilians to own a personal AR-15 but legally really bizarre for J random militia member to own a personal nuclear warhead. Another interesting way to look at it is this is the enabling legislation for state guard units; the feds usually don't give nat guard units nukes and until they do, private citizens are categorically excluded from nuclear warhead ownership.

      There are privately owned tanks and privately owned jet fighter aircraft, BTW, mostly historical or re-created relics of course, sometimes the law is internally consistent, its just not required to be self consistent.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 26 2018, @11:49PM

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday January 26 2018, @11:49PM (#628632) Homepage Journal

        -e.

        I read some guy's blog about his purchase, which he was quite pleased with.

        But he noted a small complication:

        One must pay in Ukrainian Rubles.

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:45AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:45AM (#628719) Journal

        Something to bear in mind is the law is not a math proof and is closer to a religious document such that if your religious founding document clearly states "no gays" there will none the less be people who want gay marriage who will stand on their head and cross their eyes and read it backward if necessary to accomplish wish fulfillment via extremely obscure interpretation.

        And as you note, interpretation can be even further away from a math proof. We have plenty of examples just over the past few years of people who will claim anything in order to support their side.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 26 2018, @10:30PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 26 2018, @10:30PM (#628592)

      > the people should have the same weapons as the government

      In wiser places, they always do, structurally.
      Try it: All it takes is to remember that the military grunts wielding the government's weapons are actually part of The People. Any order to use those weapons against the people is therefore absurd.
      Of course, that requires not brainwashing your military into protecting the wrong things.