# Prominent U.S. Physicists Ask Congress

## Main Question or Discussion Point

I love UCSD, I can't wait to go. This made me smile.

Prominent U.S. Physicists Ask Congress
to Forbid Use of Nuclear Weapons Against
Non-Nuclear States

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/22physicists07.asp

## Answers and Replies

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Good for them! I support that.

Could Bush not veto this, would this veto be overturned?

Could Bush not veto this, would this veto be overturned?
Assuming the letter even makes an impact on Congress, I believe Bush does have the power to veto, however, two-thirds Congress can override his veto.

Bush is a lameduck president, now. All my protesting efforts in Washington D.C. during 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq (which instantly convinced me to get out of the Army Delayed Entry Program a month before I was supposed to head to basic training) will finally start paying off.

Checks and balances!

Assuming the letter even makes an impact on Congress, I believe Bush does have the power to veto, however, two-thirds Congress can override his veto.

Bush is a lameduck president, now. All my protesting efforts in Washington D.C. during 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq (which instantly convinced me to get out of the Army Delayed Entry Program a month before I was supposed to head to basic training) will finally start paying off.

Checks and balances!
That's what I mean would they overturn it?

That's what I mean would they overturn it?
Well, the democrats have majority control over the house and the senate, which essentially makes Bush a lameduck president (all policies that he attempts to pass or construct, would be immediately halted if the democrats did not support it). Assuming Congress votes according to their party lines, I would assume Bush would be over-turned. Especially if the letter attracts national attention. Granted, this letter might not even get reviewed in any meaningful way but it has the support of some pretty high-profile academics.

Then again, I am recalling from memory lectures in my high school government class, so I might be incorrect. I will read into it. I would like to see the U.S. take a step towards nuclear prohibition or at the least, some fashion of restriction. It would not only make me feel more secure but I think would have a positive reception from other countries.

I would like to see us just get rid of nuclear weapons altogether but I know that is my idealism talking. I really am so disconnected from reality that I can not assume a realist perspective, I just can't embrace it.

Quote by Schrodingers Dog "Could Bush not veto this, would this veto be overturned?"

In the barest and simplest sense of how the U.S. Govt works yes; If this was proposed by Congress and passed through it could be vetoed by the President and dependant on whether there was a 2/3 majority the veto could be overturned.

But that's setting aside hosts of complex details and subtleties of how the branches interact with each other (linitations of powers, etc...), how things work within each branch, and as complexPhILOSEPHY said that's even taking into consideration that Congress will take this letter seriously!

Last edited:
In the barest and simplest sense of how the U.S. Govt works yes; If this was proposed by Congress and passed through it could be vetoed by the President and dependant on whether there was a 2/3 majority the veto could be overturned.
All that is required is the 'barest and simplest' sense, correct? The procedure is clearly defined in the constitution, is it not? The only 'complicated sense' that I can imagine, is one where congress does not vote their parties lines, or are you considering something else?

I am interested in your thoughts.

All that is required is the 'barest and simplest' sense, correct? The procedure is clearly defined in the constitution, is it not? The only 'complicated sense' that I can imagine, is one where congress does not vote their parties lines, or are you considering something else?

I am interested in your thoughts.
I think that's implicit in his answer, and thanks to both of you for clearing it up for me.

As the USA has signed the conventions of Geneve about war legislation, it has agreed against the use of excessive non-proportional force. it's rather unthinkable how a country without using nuclear wapens could create a situative in which the use of nuclear weapons was not to be considered non-proportional. So why would it be required to add additional rules.

Moreover the same legislation prohibits the attack against civilian targets and even if there was no legislation, nuclear weapons are highly impracticable, nothing to gain, using them.

As the USA has signed the conventions of Geneve about war legislation, it has agreed against the use of excessive non-proportional force. it's rather unthinkable how a country without using nuclear wapens could create a situative in which the use of nuclear weapons was not to be considered non-proportional. So why would it be required to add additional rules.

Moreover the same legislation prohibits the attack against civilian targets and even if there was no legislation, nuclear weapons are highly impracticable, nothing to gain, using them.
Maybe they want to test whether GWB is sane or MAD or just mad. It's a leading question.

Last edited:
mathwonk
Homework Helper
today's news on npr got my attention.

a think tank in DC tied to the whitehouse and enron offered 10K to any scientist who would write a critical article attacking the UN statement on global warming.

today's news on npr got my attention.

a think tank in DC tied to the whitehouse and enron offered 10K to any scientist who would write a critical article attacking the UN statement on global warming.
I'd pay 10m to any scientist who could figure out what planet GWB is from or living on.

verty
Homework Helper
a think tank in DC tied to the whitehouse and enron offered 10K to any scientist who would write a critical article attacking the UN statement on global warming.
Only 10K? Sounds to me like they don't think it'll work well. I think opinion is changing but as I say, change will occur when people start spending their money differently.

I'd pay 10m to any scientist who could figure out what planet GWB is from or living on.
I'd pay $10 to a liberal whose opinions are intelligent and balanced enough that they don't make an entire forum post solely for the sake of an irrelevant ad hominem attack. Forget that, I'd pay$10 to any person who met that criteria. I'm sure I won't have to pay out soon.

Hmm, come to think of it, I think I just failed that criterion myself for making this entire post about saying you were being silly.

In other news, most retailers still have PS3s on their shelves.

There, now I meet my criteria. $10 to self I'd pay$10 to a liberal whose opinions are intelligent and balanced enough that they don't make an entire forum post solely for the sake of an irrelevant ad hominem attack. Forget that, I'd pay $10 to any person who met that criteria. I'm sure I won't have to pay out soon. Hmm, come to think of it, I think I just failed that criterion myself for making this entire post about saying you were being silly. In other news, most retailers still have PS3s on their shelves. There, now I meet my criteria.$10 to self
I'd pay $10 just to have you make that point so I could assert that it was a pointless thing to say in response to attacking George Bush, the man deserves it.:tongue2: Intelligent and balanced, someone who takes offense at me attacking possibly the worst president in US history? Don't make me laugh :rofl: I'm having my intelligence questioned by a Bush supporter. Now that's rich. Last edited: I'd pay$10 just to have you make that point so I could assert that it was a pointless thing to say in response to attacking George Bush, the man deserves it.:tongue2: Intelligent and balanced, someone who takes offense at me attacking possibly the worst president in US history? Don't make me laugh :rofl: I'm having my intelligence questioned by a Bush supporter. Now that's rich.
... ok.

Not that I have any real love of GW, but to play the devil's advocate here I'm going to ask that you substantiate your claim that he is possibly one of the worst presidents in US history.

What is your standard here? The war in iraq? The economy? His faith based initiatives? The rampant budget deficit?

My problem is that the liberals are too blind with their hatred of GW to be taken seriously. Yes, the country will be better off once he is out of office. Yes, he was a mediocre president. Is he the root of all evil and all that is wrong with this world? Not by a long shot.

Back to the topic at hand...

I applaud the proposal to take the nuclear option off the table.

Personally, I'd like to see a proposal banning the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons period.

... ok.

Not that I have any real love of GW, but to play the devil's advocate here I'm going to ask that you substantiate your claim that he is possibly one of the worst presidents in US history.

What is your standard here? The war in iraq? The economy? His faith based initiatives? The rampant budget deficit?

My problem is that the liberals are too blind with their hatred of GW to be taken seriously. Yes, the country will be better off once he is out of office. Yes, he was a mediocre president. Is he the root of all evil and all that is wrong with this world? Not by a long shot.
I said possibly not is. And I know how touchy you Yanks are at mockery of your leader. Over here it's a national past time, I never have gotten this idol worship patriotism thing and probably never will. If I can't throw around obviously light hearted jokey comments without being taken to task every five minutes fine, but you guys really don't get British humour, either that or your atypical, I'm not sure which?

Even labour supporters - as rare as they are these days, being an underground culture - mock Tony Blair. it's just part of politics, Tony Blair probably thinks he's doing what's right and he knows satire comes with the job, that's what our newspaper industry was founded on, mockery of king and parliament. We are habitually mocking politicians it's part of our culture, watch the houses of parliament it's like watching a schoolyard argument sometimes, this is how it works, if you can't stand behind your argument you get mocked until you either back it up or are silenced under a hail of derision.

I'd pay 10m to any scientist who could figure out what planet GWB is from or living on.
I think next time I'll put more smilies on it and sign post it.:tongue:

Last edited:
I said possibly not is. And I know how touchy you Yanks are at mockery of your leader. Over here it's a national past time, I never have gotten this idol worship patriotism thing and probably never will. If I can't throw around obviously light hearted jokey comments without being taken to task every five minutes fine, but you guys really don't get British humour, either that or your atypical, I'm not sure which?

.....
You are absolutely correct, I don't get british humor. I'm most likely the minority on this, so don't worry.

Your first post was certainly light hearted, and in response franz was combative. I apologize for seizing upon the issue, it was off topic at any rate.

Also, I personally am not squeemish about mocking my leaders. I mock every president I have seen in my lifetime (Reagan through Bush jr).

Bush is from douchestania - may I have my $10 mil? You are absolutely correct, I don't get british humor. I'm most likely the minority on this, so don't worry. Your first post was certainly light hearted, and in response franz was combative. I apologize for seizing upon the issue, it was off topic at any rate. Also, I personally am not squeemish about mocking my leaders. I mock every president I have seen in my lifetime (Reagan through Bush jr). Bush is from douchestania - may I have my$10 mil?
I'll send you a check pm me your address

Forget about it, I tend to be a bit tetchy in the morning not had my glucose/coffee/tea fix.

Bush isn’t our leader, he leads the conservative party and assumes a figurehead position in regards to those of us who refuse to follow his policies. Especially since the democrats took majority house and congress, Bush is effectively a lame-duck. The fundamental issue with Americans following Bush blindly, is a genuine problem of ignorance. Anecdotal experience has led me to believe that American society has a fundamental terror towards the confrontation of knowledge as well as the acquisition of knowledge. It seems as though when you confront the typical American with a piece of information or knowledge that they either can’t understand, or are too close-minded to even analyze and evaluate the pieces of information. There is also some weird stigma about becoming intelligent and doing complicated things like science, especially in response to the staunch religious conservatives who believe there is no use for aspects of science that contradict their beliefs. There is seriously a pattern that I have consistently faced here, in that Creationist’s enjoy regurgitating the same false facts and arguments based on scientific research (to indicate the falsity of such claims), in an attempt to invalidate science, specifically evolution. When you simply try to discuss both sides of the issue, you are met with confrontation and anger. We have people protesting the death of homosexual soldiers, who went to fight in a war that only the conservatives (especially religious-right), seem to support.

I honestly feel as though people enjoy not knowing anything, they enjoy being close-minded, enjoy their perspectives without regard for other positions towards the topic. People are afraid to learn new things, be confronted with knowledge drastically different than the old.

I believe this is where the blind support emerges from. A fundamental lack of knowledge regarding the world and a presupposition involving the assumed intelligence of an elected official. I grew up in the South for 18 years of my life and I have never engaged human beings as ignorant as the majority of individuals I went to school with and socialized with. I had to move 3,000 miles across the country to cleanse my mind of the ignorance. I have had more intelligent conversations regarding politics with people who can barely speak English. It is embarrassing to me when I can turn on the TV and see students in other countries, illustrate a better understanding of our political system, then most of the adults that live here.

I mean, has anyone seen Bush giving speeches in conjunction with presidents from other countries? I feel as though I have seen the Romanian president, the Egyptian president, and several other foreign presidents, deliver more concise, articulate and powerful speeches in English, (presumably their second or perhaps third language) better than Bush.

In America, if you don’t win the Southern votes, you don’t win the election and the South encompasses the ignorant-conservative platform, present in America.

I rather enjoy the British parliament and watch it on television from time-to-time, to appreciate the passion displayed by the politicians. I enjoy the serious attitude towards politics displayed in Britain but admire the humor and ability to receive and embrace sarcastic criticism.

Last edited:
Bush isn’t our leader, he leads the conservative party and assumes a figurehead position in regards to those of us who refuse to follow his policies. Especially since the democrats took majority house and congress, Bush is effectively a lame-duck. The fundamental issue with Americans following Bush blindly, is a genuine problem of ignorance. Anecdotal experience has led me to believe that American society has a fundamental terror towards the confrontation of knowledge as well as the acquisition of knowledge. It seems as though when you confront the typical American with a piece of information or knowledge that they either can’t understand, or are too close-minded to even analyze and evaluate the pieces of information. There is also some weird stigma about becoming intelligent and doing complicated things like science, especially in response to the staunch religious conservatives who believe there is no use for aspects of science that contradict their beliefs. There is seriously a pattern that I have consistently faced here, in that Creationist’s enjoy regurgitating the same false facts and arguments based on scientific research (to indicate the falsity of such claims), in an attempt to invalidate science, specifically evolution. When you simply try to discuss both sides of the issue, you are met with confrontation and anger. We have people protesting the death of homosexual soldiers, who went to fight in a war that only the conservatives (especially religious-right), seem to support.

I honestly feel as though people enjoy not knowing anything, they enjoy being close-minded, enjoy their perspectives without regard for other positions towards the topic. People are afraid to learn new things, be confronted with knowledge drastically different than the old.

I believe this is where the blind support emerges from. A fundamental lack of knowledge regarding the world and a presupposition involving the assumed intelligence of an elected official. I grew up in the South for 18 years of my life and I have never engaged human beings as ignorant as the majority of individuals I went to school with and socialized with. I had to move 3,000 miles across the country to cleanse my mind of the ignorance. I have had more intelligent conversations regarding politics with people who can barely speak English. It is embarrassing to me when I can turn on the TV and see students in other countries, illustrate a better understanding of our political system, then most of the adults that live here.

I mean, has anyone seen Bush giving speeches in conjunction with presidents from other countries? I feel as though I have seen the Romanian president, the Egyptian president, and several other foreign presidents, deliver more concise, articulate and powerful speeches in English, (presumably their second or perhaps third language) better than Bush.

In America, if you don’t win the Southern votes, you don’t win the election and the South encompasses the ignorant-conservative platform, present in America.

I rather enjoy the British parliament and watch it on television from time-to-time, to appreciate the passion displayed by the politicians. I enjoy the serious attitude towards politics displayed in Britain but admire the humor and ability to receive and embrace sarcastic criticism.

Blair is a master of the speech I have to give him that, but in Britain your reputation stands on your ability to converse debate and clarify your position, without these key skills you will never even make it to the cabinet let alone to the PM's position.

Parliament can be hilarious to watch, but mostly it's dreary and day to day, occassionally thought when you have a debate on fox hunting or PM's question time it's compulsive viewing

It goes something like this.

here here shut up and sit down,

order! order! We'll have a bit less heckling from the honorable gentlemen on my left.

So if I may be able to continue,

not bloody likely! :rofl: here here here!

If I may be able to continue Mr speaker I'd like to say that fox hunting is a barbaric,cruel and morally bankrupt sport, and whilst I understand the effect of the bill on the communities howls of laughter and derision, WHILST! I understand the ,

poppycock!

Order! That will be quite enough of that gentlemen.

and so on can be pretty entertaining.

Last edited:
Yeah, that is the stuff they put on c-span here and it's pretty entertaining. I watch congress sometimes to appreciate the subject matter being discussed but the humor isn't present.

I don't really get traditional British humor but I do enjoy watching the Parliament.