rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 But they don't indulge it because it's their own arse on the line. Suicide bombers? Don't have nuclear weapons. Yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 But they don't indulge it because it's their own arse on the line. Suicide bombers? Are you saying suicide bombers suicide bomb out of terror? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 But they don't indulge it because it's their own arse on the line. Suicide bombers? Are you saying suicide bombers suicide bomb out of terror? Out of irrationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Ever. You are saying that a terrorist will never...ever get their hands on a WMD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Ever. You are saying that a terrorist will never...ever get their hands on a WMD? That is a different proposition which has no bearing whatsoever on the principle of deterrence between states. You cannot uninvent nuclear weapons, which would be an undesirable development anyway, so our deterrent is irrelevant to terrorism. It isn't in that particular equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 chemical/biological is the next biggie, shootings and driving trucks through crowds is starting to lose the effect it had initially Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 That is a different proposition which has no bearing whatsoever on the principle of deterrence between states. You cannot uninvent nuclear weapons, which would be an undesirable development anyway, so our deterrent is irrelevant to terrorism. It isn't in that particular equation. You're still using a fallacy to maintain that we need a deterrence. When will we start investing in magically anti-leopard stones? The people are at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 chemical/biological is the next biggie, shootings and driving trucks through crowds is starting to lose the effect it had initially Indeed. Unlike a nuclear weapon which requires a high degree of skill and material availability, bio/chem warfare are relatively simple to make and obtain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 i think big dave has a video on youtube somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 As I said about this time yesterday, rmanx, you clearly do not comprehend the concept of deterrence. Either that, or you know full well what you are posting is illogical but you are so wedded to the policies of the left that you cannot bring yourself to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 As I said about this time yesterday, rmanx, you clearly do not comprehend the concept of deterrence. Either that, or you know full well what you are posting is illogical but you are so wedded to the policies of the left that you cannot bring yourself to admit it. I understand deterrence...I just don't believe in its effectiveness or relevance. Also you (and Tarne, Helix, etc) are the ones using the logical fallacy. There is only a causal link between owning nukes and not being nuked. As always, we have reached an impass between my so called "lefty liberal" views and your hard line right wing views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Yep. That's true. Why do we bother? Although I would favour the despcription soft lefty liberal views versus plain common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Yep. That's true. Why do we bother? Although I would favour the despcription soft lefty liberal views versus plain common sense. Of course you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 As I said about this time yesterday, rmanx, you clearly do not comprehend the concept of deterrence. Either that, or you know full well what you are posting is illogical but you are so wedded to the policies of the left that you cannot bring yourself to admit it. I understand deterrence...I just don't believe in its effectiveness or relevance. Also you (and Tarne, Helix, etc) are the ones using the logical fallacy. There is only a causal link between owning nukes and not being nuked. As always, we have reached an impass between my so called "lefty liberal" views and your hard line right wing views. It's not a logical fallacy. We both know that your answer (and basically everybody else's too) to the "would you shoot a guy if it was guaranteed he'd shoot you too" is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.