[jjeaff]

So I assume you also think the US should destroy all of its nuclear weapons today?

You will never, ever keep people safe from something by plugging your ears and pretending it doesn't exist.

The fact that viruses can cause so much damage is exactly why we need even more research into dangerous viruses, not less.

[serial_dev]

> The fact that viruses can cause so much damage is exactly why we need even more research into dangerous viruses, not less.

Isn't this line of thinking going to create a dangerous feedback loop?

Scientists experiment to create the deadliest virus yet, this virus leaks (because part of being very dangerous is being very contagious), killing many, shutting down our life as we know it for years.

And what did we learn from it? We need more research, we need to experiment and create even more dangerous viruses, because it can cause so much damage?

Then repeat?

That's not going to end well (but I'm afraid that will happen).

[jjeaff]

Yes, it might create a feedback loop. But the fact is, no matter what the good guys do, the bad guys are going to keep at it. The only alternative is to try and stay ahead of the bad guys.

[justatdotin]

> good guys

   ^-- found the bug

[jay_kyburz]

How is knowing more about Nukes keeping us safe from Nukes?

All nukes should be decommissioned, and all countries should be open to independent inspectors. (I will never happen, but it _should_). This week, of all weeks, this should be clear.

[jjeaff]

And we should also have world peace and we should also end world hunger. That doesn't make either of those things happen.

Not staying ahead of the curve just means someone else will.

[spopejoy]

Non-proliferation treaties were a thing until the US decided not to play ball in the 90s. It is entirely feasible to conceive of nuclear containment via treaties, and indeed the world was headed in this direction after the cold war.

It doesn't help that any nuclear plant can make a "dirty bomb" btw, which is one more reason to be anti-nuclear. No nukes, no nuke weapons. Not a bad tradeoff all by itself. (And yes, such bans can be enforced, look no further than Iran's difficulty getting nuclear power going).

[dragonwriter]

> Non-proliferation treaties were a thing until the US decided not to play ball in the 90s.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty is still a thing, and the US still plays ball with it.

Arms limitation treaties were an important thing until the US scrapped the ABM Treaty in 2002, followed almost immediately by Russia dumping START II, which is the closest real thing I can think of to what you said, differing in the kind of treaty involved and the decade the wheels came off.

[spopejoy]

It's oversimplifying a lot to say Russia "dumped START II" given the dishonesty surrounding US nukes in Europe at the time. NATO's "nuclear sharing" makes a mockery of NPT. There's the USs historic support of Israel not joining NPT. And so on ... the US is not serious about non-proliferation, to say the very least.

[dragonwriter]

> It's oversimplifying a lot to say Russia "dumped START II"

It is perfectly accurate to say that they did so (and that it was a direct response to the US withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.)

> NATO's "nuclear sharing" makes a mockery of NPT

NATO’s nuclear sharing agreements predate the NPT, and no new ones have been entered since the NPT, and the continuation of the existing ones is consistent with the NPT.

[justatdotin]

you're on the rong curve.

[chernevik]

No more likely than decommissioning guns. Or swords.

[spopejoy]

Non-proliferation is possible if democracies like the US weren't determined to sabotage them. I say democracies because in theory they do what their population wants, and NPTs faced no opposition in the 90s (except from defense contractors of course).

Now it's too late for this crisis (and possibly humanity) but we must demand NPTs if/when this crisis is resolved.

[ddddfdohvsyknn]

Viral research is useful I'm sure it just annoys me when the media is framing the lab leak theory as some absurd and incredibly unlikely possibility. My point is that like a nuclear exchange a low probability times a lot of damage is high risk

[doingtheiroming]

Nuclear weapons are reasonably well controlled. I’d love to know that they were better controlled than they are though. The same applies to virus research.

[justatdotin]

> So I assume you also think the US should destroy all of its nuclear weapons today?

yes please.

[jjeaff]

Surely you don't think that would be a good idea? That leaves Russia with the most powerful weapons on earth. Something makes me think that wouldn't end well for the rest of the world.

[justatdotin]

your logical fallacies include: * 'good guy' with a gun * mutually asssured destruction * american exceptionalism

yes of course all nuclear WMD states (not just the biggest) need to abandon this losing game.

The good news is the rest of us have called time: https://banmonitor.org/tpnw-status