Jump to content

Trident and stuff


TheTeapot

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Logic can't prove a negative.

 

Saying we haven't been nuked because we have nukes is a causal link, in the same way as my magic stone and leopards.

 

Twist all you like but my analogy is sound.

You can't disprove a negative either, so if that's the way you want to go we're at somewhat of an impasse.

 

A more rational route to go down would be to theorise whether it's likely to help or not. For which I think the analogy of guns where the bullets take 10seconds to arrive and don't miss is useful. In that case you're not going to shoot someone who has a gun, because they will kill you too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Logic can't prove a negative.

 

Saying we haven't been nuked because we have nukes is a causal link, in the same way as my magic stone and leopards.

 

Twist all you like but my analogy is sound.

You can't disprove a negative either, so if that's the way you want to go we're at somewhat of an impasse.

 

A more rational route to go down would be to theorise whether it's likely to help or not. For which I think the analogy of guns where the bullets take 10seconds to arrive and don't miss is useful. In that case you're not going to shoot someone who has a gun, because they will kill you too.

 

 

Your analogy fails to take into account scaling. Is your bullet travelling half way around the world and hitting a target the size of a door?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Logic can't prove a negative.

 

Saying we haven't been nuked because we have nukes is a causal link, in the same way as my magic stone and leopards.

 

Twist all you like but my analogy is sound.

You can't disprove a negative either, so if that's the way you want to go we're at somewhat of an impasse.

 

A more rational route to go down would be to theorise whether it's likely to help or not. For which I think the analogy of guns where the bullets take 10seconds to arrive and don't miss is useful. In that case you're not going to shoot someone who has a gun, because they will kill you too.

 

Your analogy fails to take into account scaling. Is your bullet travelling half way around the world and hitting a target the size of a door?

 

No, see, you're thinking about after it's stopped being a deterrent again.

 

If you reasonably believe that by firing your slow gun at someone you will end up dead at the hands of their slow gun, you're not going to do it are you? Neither gun is going to be fired because neither person is keen on ceasing to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

150 is more than enough.

 

I love trident

 

More than enough for what? If they ever get used (and if they work), you'll long be either vaporised or wasting away to a painful radiation sickness death to even know what effect they will have.

 

Whats not to love eh?

My response was to you talking about Russia and the US having 10 times or whatever.

 

I'm simply saying 150 is more than enough. 10000 makes no difference to 150 really. That was more my point.

 

That Vanguard class Sub is a wonderful bit of kit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...