Putin's new missiles!

[Darth Executor]

Is a legal gun owner with a semi automatic long gun a bigger threat than a criminal threatening to attack you with a revolver?

i don't want to hear analogies where russia is a legal gun owner after all the russia hysteria coming from tassman over the past year

and it's more like a criminal with a bb gun vs an army of legal military grade weapons owners with rocket launchers and machineguns anyway

[Charles]

being a real threat doesn't mean being a greater threat than a threat that isn't real?

I am sorry but you read and qouted it out of context. So let me give it to you once again: "Being real does not mean being greater. Russia can have greater nuclear capacity and still not be the real threat (if they are unlikely to use it) while Nth Korea can have a rather limited nuclear capacity and pose a greater threat to American lives if they are more likely to use it. So it appears you simply misunderstood if that was your reason for calling it stupid."

[Darth Executor]

I am sorry but you read and qouted it out of context.

No, you are the one who is simply spinning tassman's statement into something that sounds (in your head) reasonable. I don't even want to debate tassman because he is stupid and there's nothing to gain from it, there's no reason to debate someone so dumb that he idolizes tassman and feels the need to white knight for him.

[Sparko]

How many others do you trust if they do not give you any reason to do so? Do you honestly think we should all just tell what we think without providing reason? It seems you are a little too eager attacking my points instead of realising that what you end up suggesting when attacking them is rather useless in a sane discussion.



When talking about threats it is important to have an estimate or idea of how likely it is that a given incident actually happens. While the consequences of nuclear war with Russia would be beyond imagination it is not at all likely to happen. The consequences of nuclear war with NK would be significant but much lower but if one is of the opinion that it is much more likely to actually happen it can in practical terms be the greater threats.

Why do you feel it is your duty to read Tassman's mind and explain what he really meant, but you complain that you could not understand DE and DE didn't explain his post to you? That's kind of odd.

NK is not a credible threat. They would be lucky to get off one shot which would probably fall into the ocean or be shot down. After which the country would be invaded and taken down, if not nuked instantly. Russia just made a credible threat to the USA with Putin bragging about his capabilities to strike without being able to be countered. He has the missiles and the capability to pull it off. Russia has been teetering on the edge for a while now. Their economy is a wreck. We have been pretty much accusing them of trying to undermine the USA's government in the elections, yet you don't think they are a threat?

What a stupid post.

[Darth Executor]

When talking about threats it is important to have an estimate or idea of how likely it is that a given incident actually happens.

There is zero reason to think NK is more likely to launch a nuke than Russia. Both countries threaten nuclear holocaust if they are attacked, only one of them can actually deliver on that promise. Your attempt to spin it like NK is somehow more belligerent than Russia when Russian belligerence is constant (IE: one of their mercenary outfits just recently attacked american troops in Syria) falls flat and is just made to save Tassman Sempai from the well deserved mocking he is getting for being a dumbass.

[guacamole]

i don't want to hear analogies where russia is a legal gun owner after all the russia hysteria coming from tassman over the past year

and it's more like a criminal with a bb gun vs an army of legal military grade weapons owners with rocket launchers and machineguns anyway

It's not a strict one-to-one analogy, only a demonstration of an instance in which a literally smaller threat is actually more dangerous.

[guacamole]

Why do you feel it is your duty to read Tassman's mind and explain what he really meant, but you complain that you could not understand DE and DE didn't explain his post to you? That's kind of odd.

NK is not a credible threat. They would be lucky to get off one shot which would probably fall into the ocean or be shot down. After which the country would be invaded and taken down, if not nuked instantly. Russia just made a credible threat to the USA with Putin bragging about his capabilities to strike without being able to be countered. He has the missiles and the capability to pull it off. Russia has been teetering on the edge for a while now. Their economy is a wreck. We have been pretty much accusing them of trying to undermine the USA's government in the elections, yet you don't think they are a threat?

What a stupid post.

You don't need a functional missile to be a credible threat. I think it was gerbz who used to post that a lunatic only needs to sail a ship with a bomb close enough to a major port city.

[Charles]

No, you are the one who is simply spinning tassman's statement into something that sounds (in your head) reasonable. I don't even want to debate tassman because he is stupid and there's nothing to gain from it, there's no reason to debate someone so dumb that he idolizes tassman and feels the need to white knight for him.

And, once again, there is no line of reasoning but rather many personal attacks. And you do not demonstrate any spinning or any of the other claims you make.

[Charles]

Why do you feel it is your duty to read Tassman's mind and explain what he really meant, but you complain that you could not understand DE and DE didn't explain his post to you? That's kind of odd.

I am not reading Tassman's mind. I am reading his text. I did not complain that I could not understand DE's post. DE made a very simple statement. I complained that he gave no reason for us to agree with his very simple statement. You must grow tired of misrepresenting at some point, Sparko... Or?

NK is not a credible threat. They would be lucky to get off one shot which would probably fall into the ocean or be shot down. After which the country would be invaded and taken down, if not nuked instantly. Russia just made a credible threat to the USA with Putin bragging about his capabilities to strike without being able to be countered. He has the missiles and the capability to pull it off. Russia has been teetering on the edge for a while now. Their economy is a wreck. We have been pretty much accusing them of trying to undermine the USA's government in the elections, yet you don't think they are a threat?

What a stupid post.

So you disagree with your president? He said: “We need only look at the depraved character of the North Korean regime to understand the nature of the nuclear threat it could pose to America and to our allies,” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1FK0BZ He is not talking about a one shot falling in the water, is he? But of course you can disagree with him.

As regards your points about economic crisis, Russia interfering with your election, pushing the limits and so on, I don't see nuclear war as a very likely consequence of it. There is to some extent a cold war logic to what Russia is doing. They know they can go rather far because war is very unlikely, since war means nuclear war. So they are doint what they are doing because they know (or feel very, very certain) we will not go to war.

[Cow Poke]

My point is very simple. DE does not give us any reason to agree with him. He just claims that Tassman's post is stupid without explaining why.

He has about an 89.7% chance of being right just by making that charge with Tassman.

That seems rather stupid. My comment was directed to DE and hist post. He is both "the guy" and "him". Rather simple. I see no reason for you to try to mess things up.

You started it - there was no reason for you to "mess things up", but that seems to be your thing.

[Cow Poke]

Is a legal gun owner with a semi automatic long gun a bigger threat than a criminal threatening to attack you with a revolver?

Depends on the intent and disposition of the legal gun owner.

[Darth Executor]

It's not a strict one-to-one analogy, only a demonstration of an instance in which a literally smaller threat is actually more dangerous.

It was tassman who tried to claim, absurdly, that only NK is a real threat. I deny this, so your analogy doesn't really fit the point i was making

[JimL]

I'd love to know where you're reading this nonsense.

Boy, you really are locked into the bubble aren't you, MM.

[Cow Poke]

Boy, you really are locked into the bubble aren't you, MM.

Are you on a mission to destroy ALL the world's irony meters?

[guacamole]

It was tassman who tried to claim, absurdly, that only NK is a real threat. I deny this, so your analogy doesn't really fit the point i was making

I wasn't giving the example to support your point. I think it would be folly to underestimate the DPRK.