freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:51pm:


Oh so now they would merely *TRY*? Previously you said they would definitely succeed. Is this you actually conceding my point that it would be practically impossible for a bunch of irrational muslims, deprived of any outside expertise or assistance, to develop a viable nuclear weapons program that would pose even remotely the same threat to humanity that the American and Russian aresenals and technology to delivery them - currently does?

Have you abandoned your ridiculous idea that muslims could destroy the world with a bunch of trucks loaded with nukes (LOL!) - just as easily as Trump could with his finger on the button? I certainly hope so.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 2:30pm:


That was the question Gandalf. You cannot evade a horse to death.

Quote:


I cannot guarantee they would succeed. This is a hypothetical remember. Perhaps they would abandon Islam and become civilised societies.

Quote:


Are you invoking the inbred retard argument?

Who said anything about dirty bombs?

And why did you go from 100s to 1000s?

Quote:


There are plenty of other ways in which reality will make a fool of you if you start telling people there are more convenient alternatives to guns. I don't want to rush you, seeing as it took so long to dawn on you that people use guns for more than just killing people. So let's stick with the horse example. Perhaps you will shock us all and demonstrate this is not some idiotic, naive fantasy.

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2019 at 7:49pm:


Because I don't think you can blow up the world or destroy civilization with 'hundreds' of nuclear laden trucks. Seems unlikely anyway. Almost as unlikely as the idea of irrational muslims somehow managing the logistical challenge of coordinating thousands of nukes in trucks in order to destroy civilization - and nothing or no one managing to stop them. And it was you who suggested they would necessarily be irrational, not me.

Also dirty bombs is about the maximum I credit "irrational muslims" of managing to come up with. But of course hundreds, let alone thousands getting successfully loaded on to trucks, completely incident free, without anyone noticing, is well and trully in the realm of fantasy.

And apparently you're still clinging on to the hilarious idea that the above fantasy is somehow as great a threat as Donald Trump with his finger on the button - yes?

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2019 at 7:49pm:


Using the bizarre and random example of the suffering injured racing horse to somehow make the case that we need guns seems like a pretty good definition of some idiotic naive fantasy. Well, completely nonsensical, at least.

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2019 at 8:46pm:


No FD, I specifically said thousands of ICBMs, as usual you weren't paying attention. America has around 4000 nukes - slightly fewer than Russia. I was referring very directly to the possibility of those very arsenals being deployed in a MAD scenario (Trump fires on Russia, Russia responds). And yes, the threat exists while ever those thousands of nukes exist, and while ever they are all capable of being deployed to practically any corner of the earth with the press of a button. If you're seriously trying to find an equivalent threat or worse in a "nuclear truck bomb" scenario (or as seriously as you can be with such a laughable prospect), then you really need to talk about a similar number or more trucks and nukes - and almost certainly more.

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2019 at 8:46pm:


I assume they can, but there is a slight difference in delivery capability. I'm pretty sure a truck can't fly over entire oceans and continents at a speed of about 6-7km/second, with a mere press of a button. 

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2019 at 8:46pm:


Sure FD, you keep telling yourself that saying there may conceivably be a viable alternative to using guns to euthenise suffering racehorses as an "elaborate fantasy" - if it really helps you.

That was not my original statement FD. Hundreds of US or Russian nukes could indeed wipe out civilization, but the actual threat faced today is far worse than that. Current US and Russian arsenals are both in the thousands - all of which could presumably be launched at any moment. And if you are going to come up with a doomsday scenario involving irrational muslims with trucks that is at least as much a threat to the current threat posed by the US, Russian etc arsenals - then you oubviously need, at the very minimum an equivalent number of nukes.

Thus my *FIRST* question I posed to you:

Quote:

Quote:


Gee silly me thinking that because their *holy book* tells them that allah will cast terror into the hearts of non-believers, that muslims killed in the cause of allah are not really dead, that muslims who commit suicide while fighting the enemies of allah are receiving a great reward, I actually thought that muslims would have  no conscience about simply destroying as many infidels as possible with a nuclear device if they had access to one, even if it meant losing their own life.

No hang on I've got over my self doubts:

Keep nukes as far away as possible from allahs' chosen people.