It takes two people to fire any of the nuclear weapons in the US (or Russian, or I believe any of the others') arsenal. A ballistic missile submarine only needs two people to turn their keys. And yet, that's enough to keep us from having a bunch of missiles wiping out several million people (and potentially provoking other strikes that cause millions more to die).

You're never going to be completely able to eliminate all risk. Even if you made it ten people, well, it's still theoretically possible that you could have a ten person suicide pact if they'd all secretly joined some sort of cult - but the risks are far, far lower. Having one person be a suicidal narcissist who's managed to escape screening or otherwise arouse suspicion is far more likely than two people doing so, who are in the same position to do something like this.

It depends on what you need to protect. You don't need to cover every inch of coastline to protect the most populated areas. Consider Fudai, one of the few towns that survived the March 2011 tsunami, because its mayor in the 1970s insisted on building a seawall that was 50% higher than most people thought was necessary. Now, this seawall didn't protect everything - Fudai still had tremendous damage to its docks and the boats therein, but all the peoples' houses, the school, etc, escaped unharmed. That makes it a heck of a lot easier to repair the damage than if you're trying to repair the entire town, nevermind the loss of life.

Consider also the case of the town of Fudai, whose mayor in the 1970s, insisted on building a 15.5 meter (51 foot) seawall to protect against tsunamis. This was much higher than most people thought was necessary at the time, but it saved the town from the March 2011 tsunami.

No, no, they didn't forget about it - the sword is powered by the desperation of the pilots, so it's only worth using when things get really bad.

Did you even bother to look at the two games I linked?

Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Gen Con can absolutely set rules for what sort of content can be presented, or what constitutes appropriate attire for the convention, just like any other business can.

What they can't do is discriminate solely on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Have they done any of that? No? I didn't think so.

"The law is in response to assholes making trouble and causing timid, straight-laced shop-owners to lose heaps of money. Instead of choosing another business to get their goods, the troublemakers insist on bringing grief to one shop."

Er.

Just what sort of situation do you think is going on here?

We're not talking about a gay couple coming in and wanting to have sex on the countertops.

We're talking about something like this:

Customer walks in, asks to order a cake for a wedding.
Shopkeeper asks relevant questions like what sort of flavor, decorations.
Customer responds, and mentions wanting two groom dolls or two bride dolls, or to have it made out to "Adam and Steve."
Shopkeeper refuses because it's for a gay wedding.

This isn't any different, or any less distasteful, if they were being refused because the Shopkeeper learned it was for an interracial wedding, or an interfaith wedding.

Religious Freedom should be about conducting your private life as you see fit. It should not be about forcing your beliefs onto others, nor about using those beliefs as an excuse to discriminate in otherwise public commerce, or to refuse to do the job you were hired to do (such as fill prescriptions).

If I run a business, I can refuse to serve people based on their conduct in my establishment, or for failure to follow non-discriminatory rules.

For instance, I can specify that there will be no public sexual activity in my bakery, and I would likely be well within my rights to kick out anyone who breaks that rule, whether they're gay, straight, or "American Pie" reenactors.

I could likewise make a rule against trying to incite violence or hate, and I'd probably be in the clear to eject anyone that was doing so, since I'm banning conduct - and particularly conduct that is disruptive to my business and my other customers. I could probably be sued over it, depending on how I enforced it, but I'd have a reasonable leg to stand on in court.

So yes - I expect GenCon would be perfectly fine if you wanted to do something like come and play some games of Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Decline_of_the_Third_Reich). You might even be able to run a game about the Holocaust like Brenda Romero's "Train" ( http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/11/brenda-romero-train-board-game-holocaust/ ) so long as it's about illustrating/teaching a point, and not celebrating or making light of such a horrific subject.

But if you cross a line beyond which most people would say it's objectionable content - well, that's a different story. In that case, those groups would be banned not because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, but because of what they're trying to do there. See the difference?

More specifically it was American/British/Dutch, as China was already at war with Japan at the time, having been invaded in 1937. America was the organizing power though. Britain and the Dutch were embroiled in a war with Nazi Germany, and would have been hesitant to take such action without American guarantees/involvement. The idea, generally, was to force Japan to back down and end the war with China, and it followed on the heels of earlier action such as freezing Japanese assets in the US, and embargoing the sale of things like scrap metal to Japan.

It wasn't so much about their economy though, as the fact that Japan did not produce enough fuel and other POL products to run its military. Had they done nothing, they would have run out of fuel for their planes and ships, rubber for tires, etc. Not only would they be unable to continue their invasion of China, they would also be unable to fight back against the USA/Britain/etc should it come to war at a later point.

Essentially the Oil Embargo brought matters to a head, and forced Japan to choose between caving to the demands, or going to war, regardless of how bad the odds might be. Human nature, unfortunately, is to choose the latter - i.e. "not without a fight."

You're right though - it is an interesting question, of how far a nation can go in using economic means to influence or deter other nations, without resorting to warfare, or pushing another nation to outright warfare. The USA/etc _did_ push Japan into a corner in 1941, but that doesn't mean they weren't right to do so in the context. We should definitely have expected the eventual result, though.

The USA is in the process of destroying old chemical weapons stockpiles, as are the Russians. Getting rid of the stuff isn't easy, or cheap. According to semi-unreliable sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention), the USA has gotten rid of approximately 90% of its stockpiles, while the Russians have gotten rid of 78%.

Assad made a decision to ditch his chemical weapons in order to avoid military intervention by the USA.

Not all "WMDs" are alike though. Nuclear weapons are weapons of state preservation in a way that Chemical weapons have never been. Chemical Weapons are nasty stuff, to be sure - but in terms of history, they've been more of a liability than an advantage. I can't think of any state that managed to stave off invasion because it had chemical weapons, and at least one was invaded in part because they were alleged to have chemical weapons.

If anything, the lesson will be that Chemical Weapons are a bigger liability than benefit, and that Nuclear Weapons development is a gamble - but if it pays off, you're set. Once you have the bomb, you're not going to get attacked, though getting there is a dangerous proposition.

Existing law already expects that a business owner or employee who sees evidence of criminal activity report that activity to the police. Failing to do so - such as developing pictures that are clearly criminal in nature (not that anyone really develops pictures anymore, but it's a good example) - makes one complicit in the crime.

But then, we're not talking about criminal activity here. We're talking about perfectly legal activity, and discrimination against people solely because they belong to a particular group.

So, you think that people should be free to discriminate, for any reason? That it's okay so long as it's just private citizens, and not the government?

So by that line of thinking, it would be okay for there to be a town where:

-The local bus company won't serve ($category) people.
-The local taxi company won't serve ($category) people.
-The local restaurant won't seat/serve ($category) people.
-The local real estate agency won't sell homes to ($category) people.
-The local baker won't bake cakes/pies/etc for ($category) people.

Putting it in the context of "religion" doesn't make it any better. Nor does it make it any better regardless of whether ($category) is Black, Gay, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim, or, yes, even Christian.

Here's an idea. Maybe, if your religion says you can't serve everyone else in society equally, then you shouldn't be choosing to work in a role where the rest of society expects you to treat everyone equally and fairly in public life? If I'm a religious conscientious objector who believes it's wrong to kill people under any circumstances, should I be able to voluntarily join the Army and then be exempt from anything to do with shooting anything or anyone? Of course not.

History is rife with examples of people who've tried to repeal, ignore, or twist the laws of supply and demand.

Some of those people have proved far more successful at it than others.

Yes, this is a very salient point. While Ukraine is unlikely to be completely taken over by Russia, it certainly goes to show how tangible weapons would be a lot more reassuring to a threatened nation than toothless paper "guarantees" of the sort Ukraine received.

It's an interesting question why one of the two major island nations that is a staunch ally of the USA relies solely on the US nuclear umbrella as deterrent, but the other maintains its own, separate, nuclear force. That's not to say that Britain _should_ get rid of its nuclear weapons, or to suggest that Japan should develop them, either - it's just something of an interesting parallel. Of course, it probably has mostly to do with Japanese aversion to nuclear weapons (due to being the only people nukes were used against), and general adherence to their postwar pacifism.