Why do people continue to believe monstrous liars?

Therefore, at present, the argument is mostly intuitive and theoretical, but I still assert that my intuitively based position is obviously correct.

First an inane strawman, now you're defining the boundaries of the discussion to suit your own ends.

And you accuse others of intellectual dishonesty?

Quote:

Therefore, at present, the argument is mostly intuitive and theoretical, but I still assert that my intuitively based position is obviously correct.

Your 'intuition' is so distortedly jaundiced that logic doesn't figured into it. There's nothing theoretical about the immorality that caused the vast number of deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan or Nicaragua or El Salvador or Chile or Vietnam or ...

Interesting the lengths you went to to avoid this,

"now you're defining the boundaries of the discussion to suit your own ends.

And you accuse others of intellectual dishonesty?"

So, then, according to you, no country with a bad ruler will ever actually try to develop nuclear weapons, and any such concern will always be unfounded?

As usual, you make the only relevant response to my post. Your response is a valid counter-argument up to a point. We do have one data point - North Korea - and they haven't yet done anything with their weapons yet. However, I assert that it's undeniable that nuclear weapons are safer with relatively moral, relatively sane rulers than with immoral crazies.

No, I reminded you that some immoral crazies had already used nuclear weapons, TWICE, and that those same immoral crazies seek to develop even more destructive weapons of mass destruction and that those same immoral crazies have recently threatened to use nuclear weapons yet again.

You're both immoral and crazy. Immoral in that you actively provide support for these people and crazy that you think that the people of the world are always just going to sit back and take it.

You have no problem screaming about your right to self defense and you whine and cry about a measly few thousand people [in the grand scheme of world events] but you speak precious little about the latest tens of thousands of innocents who died because of lies, because of an overblown sense of paranoia, because of a sickening, overweening sense of self importance.

You are a walking, talking dictionary definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Brandon9000 wrote:

So, then, according to you, no country with a bad ruler will ever actually try to develop nuclear weapons, and any such concern will always be unfounded?

This is clearly not what he said, and thus constitutes a strawman.

It also calls into question whether it's worthwhile having any conversation with you, since you are a) delusional, b) incapable of comprehending written English, or c) intellectually dishonest.

My money's on "c".

Brandon9000 wrote:

As usual, you make the only relevant response to my post. Your response is a valid counter-argument up to a point. We do have one data point - North Korea - and they haven't yet done anything with their weapons yet. However, I assert that it's undeniable that nuclear weapons are safer with relatively moral, relatively sane rulers than with immoral crazies.

Well, of course if your definition of "immoral crazy" includes people who would use nuclear weapons, then you're right. But the only person who has, to date, ordered the use of nuclear weapons in war was Harry Truman (as JTT pointed out and you obviously missed). So either Truman was an "immoral crazy," or else there's historical precedent for assuming that, on occasion, someone who is "relatively moral and relatively sane" will also drop the bomb, which makes your conclusion somewhat suspect.

We have a number of countries trying to scare their citizens into believing that Iran is developing nuclear weapons materiel.

It was a reasonable characterization of what he said...

No, not a strawman; a direct response to what he said.

No it doesn't because I never alleged that people who are relatively moral and sane wouldn't use the bomb. I only alleged that people who are relatively immoral and insane are a greater threat, and that concern about their activities on this score can sometimes be legitimate, and cannot simply be dismissed without any reference to the facts of the case.

it's worth noting that North Korea, with one of the batshit-looniest leaders on earth, hasn't used its nuclear weapons.

Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan

The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[64] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[64] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. "The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."[64]

The #1 reason immoral crazy leaders have not used their nuclear weapons is because moral and sane leaders have used nuclear weapons.
Immoral crazy leaders know full well what will happen if the use their nukes... their country will be targeted... they don't want this to happen.

Still, it's worth noting that immoral crazy Islamic extremist terrorists have no particular country that can be targeted in retaliation for their using a nuke.

H2O MAN wrote:

The #1 reason immoral crazy leaders have not used their nuclear weapons is because moral and sane leaders have used nuclear weapons.
Immoral crazy leaders know full well what will happen if the use their nukes... their country will be targeted... they don't want this to happen.

Well yeah, that's how nuclear deterrence works. Is this somehow news to you?

H2O MAN wrote:

Still, it's worth noting that immoral crazy Islamic extremist terrorists have no particular country that can be targeted in retaliation for their using a nuke.

Then you should be a strong advocate for giving immoral crazy Islamic extremist terrorists their own country.