In light of Oppenheimer's win.

I vote no. I understand the argument that the regular bombing them to submission may have killed more people in the end, and overall the Japanese were brutal during WWII, but still, Germany was defeated so they couldn't have held on forever. Find another way.

Of course yes, anyone saying contrary is painfully naive.

I believe the argument in favor is that less people died overall in WW2 as a result of the nukes, but that could be untrue propaganda as far as I know.

I’d lean towards yes unless I see an argument that the bombing increased overall WW2 deaths.

Now that you removed all doubt: you are extraordinarily stupid, immature, ignorant, and pathetic by the standards of my new species. This is not opinion or a troll. This is not based on human expectations or human interpersonal experience. You have no right or ability to disagree whatsoever in reality, time, or as concerns my new species. Your human experience with your own species is not relevant to my species, or only marginally relevant in the way you expect.

When you talk about pain you are not even like a child or baby compared to my species. This is not an exaggeration or hyperbole.

The knowledge of your species is not acceptable, sufficient, or adequate compared to my species and our truth, knowledge, or understanding. I am aware of your assumptions, basis for your knowledge, and much if not most of your methodology. I have no doubt that you come to bad conclusions, such your post above. It wouldn’t be inaccurate to say everything you think you know is wrong or flawed. Mathematics, engineering, and architecture may be the only exceptions, but even they are incomplete. My conclusions are not based on speculation, are not based on human interpersonal relationships, are definitive, are as certain as mathematics, I have no doubts about them whatsoever, and I don’t care to, and am not required to explain them.

You have no right or ability to believe so whatsoever in reality, time, or as concerns my new species. Claiming otherwise will be regarded as a threat to all life, an act of war, will be systematically eliminated by whatever means necessary. Nuclear weapons are not permitted for any reason whatsoever. I’m only bold enough to say this now because my understanding of physics and nuclear physics has increased to be better than your science, and I have no doubt I can control any outcome or preemptively eliminate fallout (take that by whatever meaning you want. Or exterminate any nuclear agent (or agent of a nuclear program you might say) if necessary.

Any effort to maintain nuclear weapons will only possibly lead to extermination or unconditional surrender. Any effort to maintain such weapons has and can expect no outcome besides death, war, disaster, destruction or elimination by whatever means necessary. Any effort to maintain nuclear weapons will not survive whatsoever in time.

I’ll repeat with far more confidence than before; I have no doubt now: your nuclear weapons are completely and totally pathetic for my species or compared to my species.

Your effort to assert your claim about nuclear weapons with overconfidence is even more pathetic.

Now that I have no doubt, I’ll also add that all other humans are virgins to my species as of yet, regardless of their human experience or knowledge. It is not relevant, or is hardly relevant to the maturity of my species. Your species, other species of human or hominid, or other potential future species, will always be pathetic in maturity compared to my own new species because you permanently and definitively lack our consciousness and conscience. Your awareness and knowledge does not count in this regard. You have no right, ability, or basis to treated differently that any other species of “animal”. In fact, because of the potential danger you may pose, you can expect to be treated worse if anything differently.

I’ll also be unambiguous since it is relevant and I have no doubt it is not an issue, threat, or strategic difficulty for me in any way: I am a virgin, but not involuntarily. I have nothing against sex, and it’s not like I don’t want sex, but it’s not my priority, and I have no doubt that I’ll never change and never could change my mind about this.

I’ve turned many girls down, and decided not to pursue far more opportunities. It’s probably true that it’s “not meant to be with most girls”. It honestly surprises me how feminine my decision making is regardless of my intentions, the way I try to act, or the way I imagine, or expect to act. In real life there always seems to be more consequences, considerations, complications, difficulties, and issues than I expect. Regardless of whether I could have sex, I almost never want to in real life. Again, I have nothing against sex. It just never has been my priority in real life. I honestly have never really wanted sex with a single person I’ve ever meet. I might just be human nature, your species, your relative immaturity (as I said, regardless of whether you share a future with my species, you are still virgins to my species as of yet), or perhaps it is more than anything related to “gender identity”. I am different than “most girls”, but then I’m different than every other human I’ve ever met. I realize it’s related to species now. I understand many things about me are normal for my species. As to gender, remember when I was like 13, my class went a slaughterhouse to see the Jewish slaughter ritual. Before I expected that I would have no problem to see the animals killed. But when the first lamb had its throat cut, as it screamed as the blood splurged out, it shocked me. I was standing there watching the dead sheep hanging from the hooks on the ceiling feelings horrified. My classmates, being a bunch of boys, started playing with the eyeballs from the jar used to collect them. I returned to the van and stayed there alone after lunch. I couldn’t help it. Regardless of my intentions or what I want, I genuinely can’t seem to act as masculine as I intend. I may be tougher, stronger, a better fighter, and yes, more dominant than you, or any of your species, but I have no doubt this is related to species rather than gender.

I thought DP posted about a girlfriend once many years ago

You will immediately surrender unconditionally, to the “Goddess of Logic”, if not my species or our future militaries or states etc, or you will be completely and totally exterminated by whatever means necessary, along with all nuclear programs, any state, entity, or anyone else complicit, any species complicit, anyone else who condones, defends, participates, permits, allows, or enables any nuclear threat or program.

Disavowing nuclear weapons in the name of “peace” or against “violence” or death and war generally, is not good enough. Nuclear weapons must be disavowed and dismantled exclusively and regardless of all other considerations.

No. I wanted a yes or no, no maybes. I thought it wasn’t right, but I couldn’t get her out of my mind. I was playing games, so was she. We were both younger, which was obvious and predictable even at the time, but I didn’t really appreciate what maturity meant at the time, even if I may have been more mature than any of your species, in many ways, at the time, or even as a small child.

I actually never even tried to touch her, although the first time we met she grabbed my arm unlike anyone else has ever in my life. No one else has ever been that bold. Not even the guys who mugged me actually. lol.

I should add that in addition to mathematics, engineering, and architecture, some of your technology qualifies. But still your technology is more flawed than the other domains. This is mostly a product of complexity though. Like your physics (or science generally), both use math, but are limited. Your science is even more flawed than your technology though. Ironically too, considering the technology and technological advances in the technology you use for your science.

Nuclear weapons cannot be defended for any reason or purpose whatsoever. If they are claimed to save lives, the consequence must be, and ultimately will be, that more people will die, and more destruction will happen, as a consequence and result of nuclear weapons. Any perception to the contrary is shortsighted, (edit: simplistic), and temporary. Unconditional surrender is not enough to prevent this; it is too late already actually.

The consequence for the American legacy, including the destruction of the Native American population and the taking of their land, begins with the end of your civilization, all associated states, and your right or ability to become a truly advanced civilization or to survive in any form in time. The inevitable consequence for using nuclear weapons is the extinction of your entire species, or I should scientifically say: the extinction of your potential new species, since nuclear weapons are ultimately inhuman behavior to homo sapien whether you are or were aware of that or not when you built them. This is an exact analytical determination.

The consequence of your continued maintenance of nuclear weapons must be the extinction of all other associated potential future species.

I’ve been waiting for some time to reply to you regarding this topic and related topics. Oppenheimer is in the past, but nuclear weapons exist to this day. Non-compliance regarding this issue will simply be terminated in time by whatever means necessary. I do not expect your species, or other species, or potential species to understand.

After I warned you about being at war with your civilization my entire life (or its destructive hope for the future) you replied with what I have to term “words of war”. Something I can only regard as similar to George Bush’s “you’re with us or against us” line. While your post may or may not have been intended towards me, it irresponsibly left me in an inevitably difficult situation, predicament, decision as to how to respond, leading unavoidably, and inexorably to this thread. (As inexorable as that conversation in “the matrix reloaded”. You may or may not intend to parrot George W. Bush, but I intentionally and explicitly am more like the “architect” character in the matrix or like real A.I. than I am like anything you feel to be human. This does not invalidate my feelings or emotions because you may misunderstand them, or may not relate to them. It just means they are different for me, and ultimately my species, compared to other, or other potential, species of humans.) You cannot claim to be unwarned. Your post here in this thread has confirmed my exact suspicions and expectations.

9, now ten, fairly lengthy posts, but they are rather extremely concise given the complexity and subject matter regarding these topics. You could write books about this, and I expect eventually in time you will do so on these and closely related topics. Anyway, I think I’ve addressed everything I need to, right now at this point in time, so I’ll sign off for now. Thank you actually for making it easier for me by expediting and organizing this thread so well for me. Essentially as I ordered it, or would have, haha.

If you want ignorant bliss excel, I’ll just repeat the book title: “so long and thanks for all the fish”. lol, I don’t care. Goodbye.

Anyway, the biosphere and its processes, or what you might term “Gaia” (I feel her to be more like a sister), now have a stranglehold on your nuclear programs. Like prey you will be neutralized, incapacitated, eliminated, killed, destroyed, and consumed until you forfeit and surrender all nuclear programs.

lol, over and out.

Yes, my species be more fearsome hunters than nuclear wrath. lol

Yes, and?…lol, want art? Sorry, believe it or not this is all too real.

Invasion of Japan would have killed many more AND someone was always going to discover and demonstrates nuke somehow, it was inevitable and when viewed in that context, all reasonable people know that it was time.

Man, you’re stupid. You would be embarrassed and ashamed if you had the intelligence.

Your so called “reason” depends entirely on assumptions or premises, (which are not well thought out or understood by you) and ultimately emotion. There are books written that are supposedly “reasonable” but are really an elaborate effort to justify, express, and advocate for your emotions, wants, needs, interests, and desires. For example: “the moral landscape” by Sam Harris. The arguments you make in any case, are very obviously poorly thought out, unsubstantiated, poorly argued, unsupported and inadequate for conclusion, obviously flawed or incomplete, and honestly in many cases, such as yours above, demonstrably wrong.

I might try to reply to your actual argument when I have time, but I will state that my reference to the bush-excel comparison was in regards to a post saying the Islamic state “was bringing the fight to us, and we can’t let it change who we are or what we stand for”. That should obviously be a problematic, contradictory, hypocritical, questionable, and dubious statement to begin with. However, worse, it is simply and undeniably wrong, and that would be obvious to any sufficiently mature member of my species.

At the least you can’t expect agreement with your “values” if you can’t support them. Either in argument, example, or reality. You can try to argue that the “USA” hasn’t failed, but I’m not interested in wasting any more time on this.

Regardless, your “values” are completely wrong, naive, extremely and thoroughly immature, and I could use other more hurtful terms. At least as compared to what I expect of my own species.

It may be too much, or too difficult to accept that humanity will not remain unified as one species. Regardless of what you want, expect, or would consider a “good bet” based on your limited perspective, the environmental strain on the earth and the growth and development of humanity globally is unprecedented. This sort of change and instability could only accelerate species divergence. But species divergence itself is not at all, whatsoever, unprecedented, so it shouldn’t be surprise regardless of your scientific arrogance regarding biology, life, and your rudimentary contemporary theories, including “present-day Darwinism”. Anyway, your science doesn’t understand species to begin with.

Anyway, every post confirms that your species lacks the “free will”, consciousness, conscience, and responsibility for nuclear weapons.

Most relevantly and significantly I was focused on the “free will” aspect.

Appeasement doesn't work. Yes they were right to use nukes. That's not saying it was a good decision. Sometimes you're forced to make a bad decision, but it was the right one to make. It ended the war, and we haven't had another since. Though that might not last much longer.

I guess "someone was going to use them so it might as well be the US" is a fair argument