(But Nobody is That Stupid)

actually, it's pretty idiotic. and a very shallow and facile argument all the same.

islamists do not operate on a rational basis. if they get a nuke, and they very well may do so, you cannot expect them to respond to counterarguments based on rational reasons.

um, no.

LOTS of people are that stupid.

Evangelicals are pretty damned irrational too.

that was a pretty lame pop interpretation of the sitcheeation.

greenlit? It did sound like perhaps someone who frequents this site might have written it.

Im more frightened that someone saw this as profound.

I find it funny that most of this country fears terrorism. What a waste of time, energy and money.

Guess what, you're not gonna die from a terrorist attack morans.

what the fart is an islamist?

Paki's have the nuke, but pervez is co-operative. Pakistan is no threat to anyone. I call BS on that!

Personally, I don't support lists.

is "islamist" a word?

does it mean "Muslim"

when did it originate?

If you have an argument against something, and the argument's basis is "nobody is that stupid", discard said argument immediately because you're wrong.

WTF what a horrible analogy...
"One day, this person decided to turn off the light for a large portion of Japanese people in the room and they perished as a result. Sadly (or luckily?), the room wasn't very big and other people saw what this person was doing and soon learned how to do as he did."

I farking hate people...

Convincing? Oh so the ability to instantly wipe out the entirity of the earth but no one wants to do so for...whatever reason, is safety? Of course, because we know that no one would ever assume that if military powers were knocking on their door, were about to start out, that they would hurl that out there.

Right now, yes, they are for "defense" in the MAD sense of the word, but you give it to radicals who do not have a nation, what do you do? Fire wildly into the air hoping you kill them and millions of civilians?

If anything it is a convincing reason why we should develop far more assured technologies for protection against nuclear weapons.

If some guy on the internet with a blog believes it, then I'm convinced.

islamists Politicians do not operate issue hyperbolic rhetoric on a rational basis.

fixed that.

We heard the same shiat about teh evil commies back in the day. If some radicals get a dirty bomb they may sicken a few thousand, but nobody's going to be lobbing major levels of planet destruction anytime soon.

Even if they do, I got plastic sheeting and duct tape. Duck & cover.

The world will end not with a bang but with a blogger thinking he has it all under control in his "Truth-Cave."

I've never been afraid of nukes. Worrying about something you can't control is teh ghey. However, if I was a pussy like this administration wants me to be, I'd be more afraid of the mideast countries that I ever would be of the Ruskies. Ivan didn't want nuclear war anymore than Joe 6 Pack. Habib however, who knows. Still don't care though.

islamist?,,,,On this old house, one who closes door quickly.

/the best i can do on short notice.

Mulimists and Islamians are dangerous.

I don't know. I have assumed for quite a while now that if we got hit by a nuke we wouldn't have the restraint to not fire one back. It is just a huge slap in the face. And if we fire back then I think it's every country for itself. Goodnight humanity, it was a great few millenia.

author/submitter is an idiot.

We know that rational countries are deterred by MAD. However, Islamic terrorists are not rational. The threat is that a rogue nation would sell/give a nuke to a terrorist group. The terrorist group has no home country, so there would be no way there could be retalliation (unless it was found where they got the nuke from).

sorta convincing...

Kind of. Maybe. I still wouldn't want to be in the same room as a nuke though.

/nuke-o-phobia

You had me at the lightbulb.

albo asserted:
Islamists Religious nutjobs of any description do not operate on a rational basis.

Corrected.

Personally I think it's the Danish we must watch out for.

They seem to think they have american rights, american military power and an american sense of humor..


they've got none of it.

Hi, Tom-Sheep!

Article is moronic. It completely neglects the R word (religion). If you're a major world leader who's convinced you're destined to see the return of either Jesus Christ or the Twelfth Imam, you probably don't think you have all that much to lose.

islamist? no, it's islamanese

If a nuclear bomb explodes, you want to either be directly beneath it or on the other side of the world from it.

I think a reasonable person would say the guy has a point worth considering, within the framework of a broad exploration of nookyouler weapons issues.

Of course the obvious thing is, that we dont want some truly insane person to get a nuke. A person that would not seeing the end of the world.

A "non state" actor, as the Bushies would say.

Funny they claim to be adapting to the new war and know better how to handle "asymetric" war, and yet they have decided Iraq was more important than Bin Laden.

Love the comment-
"You are mildly intelligent. You believe you are extremely intelligent."

/Second comment- "O RLY?"

...a truly insane person, one who would not MIND seeing the end of the world. Thats the guy we dont want to have a nuke.

albo

If "Islamists" get a nuke, chances are it's gonna be in a majority Islam country - I don't think any of the Western governments are incompetent enough to let that slip through the net.
I don't know of any 'majority Islam' country (I'm trying to be non-denominational here) that has intercontinental ballistic missile capacity, or at least one capable of wiping out a G7 country. They may lay the SmackDown© on Israel, but then the rest of the world - knowing nuclear retaliation is far to risky - would Eurofighter/F22A/Mig 29 them out of existence.

So there's nothing to worry about.

Ok, so this seems pretty wrong to me. I actually convinced the exact oppisite is true - nukes will destroy the humanity at some point in the fairly near future (500 years).

Why? Not everyone operates on a rational basis. There are many, many people who are willing to give up their life for some reason.

If any suicidal person gets his or her hands on the button, its pretty much all over.

The only thing I can even think of as a possibility of that not ending the world is the fact that it is completely irrational to respond with atomic force to an atomic attack. If I was president, and Russia launched all its nukes at the US, I would not respond. I would do everything in my power to stop the nukes, but I would not respond. MAD is crazy. Any rational person would not end the world, and we are assuming that only one person goes crazy at a time.

Blah.

damnit those "to"s and "too"s

Terrorists don't need an ICBM to nuke us, they could slip one in by boat or truck. Anyone who thinks that the terrorists are not a nuclear threat is ignorant.

Not all Islamic countries are nuts.

Turkey has a good system of government that separates the religion from the government enough to make it work, and not turn into Iran.
I read somewhere that when the modern day Turkey was formed, the military insisted on a governmental form that was not run by the Religious leaders. Pretty smart.

Sorry, submitter, but saying "nobody is THAT stupid" is sort of like saying, "well, it could be worse; at least it's not raining," after which it always rains.

It more or less guarantees that someone IS, in fact, that stupid, and will shortly prove you wrong in a huge way.

/So let's be thankful that there are other good reasons nukes probably will not be flying any time soon

mr. mister: "You are mildly intelligent. You believe you are extremely intelligent."

That's generous. I dont think that culling everything you know from PolySci 101 and Internet pablum and forming it into a shiat pile of a blog takes THAT much intelligence. It just takes the will to whore attention.

My guess - submitter/author = the same person.

The best reason I have for not fearing a nuke is that it would be a wasted effort for them, unless they wanted to nuke a bunch of trees. The nearest city or military base is 60 miles away.

islamist? no, it's islamanese

I am islamese if you please...
I am islamese if you don't please

I think the most convincing part of this argument is "!--[if !supportLists]-- !--[endif]--".

how funny...as i read that article the bulb in my lamp burned out...bright blue flash and then darkness...

/BIG STORMS ALWAYS COME!!

Guns don't kill people. people kill people.
And I'm for both gun and people control.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Terrorists don't need an ICBM to nuke us, they could slip one in by boat or truck. Anyone who thinks that the terrorists are not a nuclear threat is ignorant.
<sarcasm>
Oh please. How would they ever be able to smuggle a nuke past our tight border security? </sarcasm>

rbuzby: Turkey has a good system of government

that's funny right there.

(This Number)-1 = how many people think your stupid.

Ain't democracy grand?

It is only convincing if you are an ignorant fool who doesn't know anything about the real dangers of nuclear proliferation.

One of the most important, core tenents of our foreign policy since JFK (non-proliferation) is going POOF! with W Shrub as president.

/war is peace

Major nations with everything to lose and an effective alternate arsenal aren't that stupid.

Lot of nervous nellies in this thread.

puuukeey: how many people think your stupid.

can any of them spell?