|Re: Tehran Threatens to use Nuclear weapons on itself...|
- Sunday, November 20 2011, 18:39:11 (UTC)|
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
> >>In the case of nuclear proliferation, I am relying on the law of probability: the more nuclear powers there are and the further we project into the future, the more likely the event of a nuclear warfare will become.
>>...now all of a sudden you ARE predicting? Seems you don't mind it when it proves your point.
>I do not know why you said the above two sentences. I would appreciate it if you could explain.
...the law of probability is a prediction....it is probable, not certain.
>The idea here is that past information should not be used as an input factor to project the future. If you buy a stock that continuously yielded profit in the past 10 years, it doesn't mean it will continue to do so in the future. If you threw a coin ten times and each time you got the same face, it doesn't mean that you will get the same result the next time.
...right....it's possible that pigs fly on Mars...but it isn't very likely. But how do we reach that determination? Because we know of no flying pigs anywhere and have no reason to believe they do so on Mars, or even exist on Mars...all our past experience tells us that no such thing is probable...we base that on past experience.
...the past tells me that when one country has a nuclear bomb, like the United States did in 1945, it will use it....I also learn that when the Soviets and Chinese got them, we dropped none and neither did they...I also see that we attack countries which don't have nuclear weapons...therefore if a country doesn't want to be attacked it should get nuclear weapons...if we don;t like it, it is our fault...we started this thing and we went over to the MidEast attacking them...they never came here....the basis for all your fears lies with your own country and not Muslims...
> >>That's exactly what I'm talking about: chances. The question is: should “we take our chances”? Should we place that bet? Should we throw that ball and spin the roulette of fate?
...yes...since they have to do the same...so should we, especially since we started it.
>>...those without nuclear weapons have to take their chances..why not the rest of us?
>I didn't get that either. The debate here is whether or not to allow all countries to build nuclear weapons. That is the bet or the roulette ball.
...it isn't up to us...what WAS up to us was not to attack so many countries without provocation...that was in our control, whether or not other countries get those weapons isn't up to us.
> >...if we lose, we lose...why should only Darkies lose? We either all survive or all die...seems fair to me...the world is a boat floating in the galaxy...some passengers want all the food and water, others think all should share equally...since we can't throw anyone overboard we have to get along...or die.
>No actually we have two choices: either to throw away few passengers or to keep them all on board knowing that there's a chance that the ship might sink. You choose to keep them all and take the chance. Fine.
..it isn't my choice...the United States torpedoed this ship...whether one dies or all die is the fault of the United States, not the captain of the sinking ship.
The full topic:|