Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

#52 Dec 06 2012 at 9:24 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts

Bullsh*t. A smart bomb is a thousand times more lilkely to eliminate only its target when compared to say, releasing a cloud of sarin gas into the open air. Even a lowly machine gun is dramatically less indiscriminate than an artillary shell laced with mustard gas or an airborne agent orange delivery. Any argument to the contrary is born of self-delusion.


A smart bomb is a thousand times more likely to kill an innocent bystander than injecting the target with a nerve toxin. Delivery systems aren't payloads. See the logical fallacy with your argument yet?

Also, don't take this wrong way, but it's hard for me to imagine that anyone values your opinion on this much relative to mine. Now if we were discussing pork rinds or something where you had any education or experience not acquired in the last hour, then maybe. Actually, probably not then either. Forget I brought it up.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#53 Dec 06 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
A smart bomb is a thousand times more likely to kill an innocent bystander than injecting the target with a nerve toxin. Delivery systems aren't payloads. See the logical fallacy with your argument yet?


One of these requires a close encounter with the target, putting the delivery agent in substantially more danger and is also impractical in too many scenarios to be worthy of serious discussion. I'll let you figure out which.

Quote:
Also, don't take this wrong way, but it's hard for me to imagine that anyone values your opinion on this much relative to mine. Now if we were discussing pork rinds or something where you had any education or experience not acquired in the last hour, then maybe. Actually, probably not then either. Forget I brought it up.


Blah blah blah. That crutch must be getting old and withered by now.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#54 Dec 06 2012 at 9:59 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
One of these requires a close encounter with the target, putting the delivery agent in substantially more danger and is also impractical in too many scenarios to be worthy of serious discussion. I'll let you figure out which.


Yes, that's the point, fuckstick. Now see if you can extrapolate the painfully obvious point you picked up to the comparison of a $20 artillery shell and a $17,000 precision guided munition you made earlier.

I won't hold my breath.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#55 Dec 06 2012 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Individuals will always find a way to kill other individuals, and governments have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens or the citizens of another country absolutely cannot be compared to individual gun ownership.

Of course it can. There is nothing "magic" about chemical weapons. They aren't outlawed because of the horror of them, they're outlawed because they are cheap and can level the playing field for poorer countries in conflict with richer ones. The idea that it's "worse" to die from mustard gas or whatever than to die from a bomb firing robot is an idiotic self serving construct of the powerful.


I dunno, having seen a brief VX test footage segment, I think I'll take the bomb robot. That **** did not look pleasent.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#56 Dec 06 2012 at 10:10 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
I dunno, having seen a brief VX test footage segment, I think I'll take the bomb robot. That sh*t did not look pleasent.

Neither is being shot. Or stabbed. "visually unappealing to observers" shouldn't be high on the list of how to make decisions about how to kill people.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#57 Dec 06 2012 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
It seems like the biggest benefit to "conventional" armaments is the chance at instantaneous death. Whereas bio/chem/nukes pretty much guarantee horrendous pain and suffering as you bleed to death through your pores or whatever (barring close proximity to a nuclear blast), only *some* gunshot wounds cause your bowels to unravel as you try to find cover and a medic.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#58 Dec 07 2012 at 3:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,579 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Also, don't take this wrong way, but it's hard for me to imagine that anyone values your opinion on this much relative to mine.


I don't know. It's kind of hard to take someone seriously when they haven't mastered the relatively simple mechanic of the quote. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#59 Dec 07 2012 at 4:44 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,324 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
With the former, unless you're specifically out to do it, you aren't going to end up killing a large quantity of innocent civilians


I am really failing to see much substantive difference between killing people with this or with that. Civilians make up a huge percentage of deaths in so-called conventional warfare.

Rationally speaking, guns, today, at this very moment are hurting way more inocent people than chemical weapns. Which isn't to say chemical weapons are anything but nasty, but so are the ak47s used to round up the next batch of child soldiers.

I'll grant that chemical weapons are less controllable and may seem scarier

but I don't really think being machine gunned to death would be pleasant ...how about we stop quibbling about how we kill people and move towards a more rational world?
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#60 Dec 07 2012 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
A smart bomb is a thousand times more likely to kill an innocent bystander than injecting the target with a nerve toxin. Delivery systems aren't payloads. See the logical fallacy with your argument yet?


One of these requires a close encounter with the target, putting the delivery agent in substantially more danger and is also impractical in too many scenarios to be worthy of serious discussion. I'll let you figure out which.

Someone just changed the argument mid-stream. I'll let you figure out who.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#61 Dec 07 2012 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
A smart bomb is a thousand times more likely to kill an innocent bystander than injecting the target with a nerve toxin. Delivery systems aren't payloads. See the logical fallacy with your argument yet?


One of these requires a close encounter with the target, putting the delivery agent in substantially more danger and is also impractical in too many scenarios to be worthy of serious discussion. I'll let you figure out which.

Someone just changed the argument mid-stream. I'll let you figure out who.


I didn't change the argument at all. He presented an extremely isolated example of chemical weapon use that contradicted the claim that such weapons are massively indicscriminate when compared with conventional options, and I pointed out the general impracticality of that example. The only counterpoint that followed was **********************
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#62 Dec 07 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts

I didn't change the argument at all. He presented an extremely isolated example of chemical weapon use that contradicted the claim that such weapons are massively indicscriminate when compared with conventional options, and I pointed out the general impracticality of that example. The only counterpoint that followed was "@#%^stick".


No, shitbird, your argument was trivially logically refuted. Thus endeth the lesson. If you want to continue to Gbaji your way through rationalizing an incoherent "ahh chemicals are scary!!" position, be my guest. I'm done with it. Enjoy as many revisions, "clarifications" last word posts, etc as you like.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#63 Dec 07 2012 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I didn't change the argument at all. He presented an extremely isolated example of chemical weapon use that contradicted the claim that such weapons are massively indicscriminate when compared with conventional options, and I pointed out the general impracticality of that example. The only counterpoint that followed was "@#%^stick".


No, shitbird, your argument was trivially logically refuted.


Using an example that is completely contrary to the discussion, unless of course you're claiming that international concern over Assad's use of chemical weapons is limited to his ability to deliver them directly to individual opponents, in which case, my self-delusion comment stands firm.

Quote:
I'm done with it.


Right... keep on not posting with your bad self.

____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#64 Dec 07 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
A smart bomb is a thousand times more likely to kill an innocent bystander than injecting the target with a nerve toxin. Delivery systems aren't payloads. See the logical fallacy with your argument yet?


One of these requires a close encounter with the target, putting the delivery agent in substantially more danger and is also impractical in too many scenarios to be worthy of serious discussion. I'll let you figure out which.

Someone just changed the argument mid-stream. I'll let you figure out who.


I didn't change the argument at all. He presented an extremely isolated example of chemical weapon use that contradicted the claim that such weapons are massively indiscriminate when compared with conventional options, and I pointed out the general impracticality of that example. The only counterpoint that followed was "@#%^stick".

A traditional explosive doesn't discriminate any better than a canister of gas. You ignored that bit of information. Injection by ricin isn't anymore isolated than gassing by sarin - both are rare, both require some deal of chemistry to pull off.

Getting blowed up by an IED could be just as common as getting blowed up by a sniper bullet.

However you decided to compare the sniper bullet to the canister of sarin.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#65 Dec 07 2012 at 9:39 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
A smart bomb is a thousand times more likely to kill an innocent bystander than injecting the target with a nerve toxin. Delivery systems aren't payloads. See the logical fallacy with your argument yet?


One of these requires a close encounter with the target, putting the delivery agent in substantially more danger and is also impractical in too many scenarios to be worthy of serious discussion. I'll let you figure out which.

Someone just changed the argument mid-stream. I'll let you figure out who.


I didn't change the argument at all. He presented an extremely isolated example of chemical weapon use that contradicted the claim that such weapons are massively indiscriminate when compared with conventional options, and I pointed out the general impracticality of that example. The only counterpoint that followed was "@#%^stick".

A traditional explosive doesn't discriminate any better than a canister of gas. You ignored that bit of information. Injection by ricin isn't anymore isolated than gassing by sarin - both are rare, both require some deal of chemistry to pull off.

Getting blowed up by an IED could be just as common as getting blowed up by a sniper bullet.

However you decided to compare the sniper bullet to the canister of sarin.


Even an IED is isolated in its impact. Sarin, not so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

Quote:
In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on several lines of the Tokyo Metro, killing thirteen people, severely injuring fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Quote:
1988: Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded with chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin, in the Halabja poison gas attack. An estimated 5,000 people died almost instantly.[21]


The suggestion that typical methods of delivering Sarin gas are any less or equally discriminate than conventional weapons is ludicrous at best, but keep on keepin' on with the false premises. I guarantee that international concern over Assad's potential use of chemcal weapons is based on his ability to deliver them to mass quantities of people, and not at all based in some theoretical isolated incident proposed by some idiot on a gaming forum.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#66 Dec 07 2012 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
BrownDuck wrote:


The suggestion that typical methods of delivering Sarin gas are any less or equally discriminate than conventional weapons is ludicrous at best, but keep on keepin' on with the false premises. I guarantee that international concern over Assad's potential use of chemcal weapons is based on his ability to deliver them to mass quantities of people, and not at all based in some theoretical isolated incident proposed by some idiot on a gaming forum.

And if he had a stockpile of daisy cutters that he'd threatened his people with the international community could sleep better at night?








Edited, Dec 7th 2012 7:11pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#67 Dec 07 2012 at 2:21 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Well, I think I get it... Chemical and biological attacks cover such a large range and affects so many innocent people, that it's different than a handgun. The rest of the world should mimic the US. I mean, what country would we be if we ever used a massive nuclear weapon to kill hundreds of thousands of people.Smiley: rolleyes

Happy DEC 7.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#68 Dec 07 2012 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,579 posts
That was a very long play, Alma.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#69 Dec 07 2012 at 4:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
Elinda wrote:
And if he had a stockpile of daisy cutters that he'd threatened his people with the international community could sleep better at night?


Precisely!

I, for one, feel much better knowing that people are indiscriminately slaughtering civilians in a socially acceptable manner.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#70 Dec 07 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I dunno, having seen a brief VX test footage segment, I think I'll take the bomb robot. That sh*t did not look pleasent.

Neither is being shot. Or stabbed. "visually unappealing to observers" shouldn't be high on the list of how to make decisions about how to kill people.


I get the whole "either way, you're still dead" argument, but even still, those 30 seconds until your foot hits that bucket are really important to you. I mean, If I have to go, sexed to death by a supermodel is probably going to be prefferable to "extreme, excrutiating agony of the worst sort imaginable whilst your organs and eyes liquify into a gelatenous soup" regardless of what any onlookers may think. Though if one is trying to make a point along the lines of "attack us and die horribly or if you don't die, you'll wish you were dead" in a military strategic sense, I suspect one would find that forces under your command would be more willing to face increased firepower than nerve gas. Regardless of the relative cost of delivery method or actual effectiveness, there is definitly a psychological component to chemical warfare that can't be ignored.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#71 Dec 07 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
That was a very long play, Alma.


Just pointing out the fact that this is all about preventing potential enemies from having the upper hand at war, nothing more nothing less.

Edited, Dec 8th 2012 12:49am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#72 Dec 07 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
While I agree in principle to Smash's earlier point that delivery systems are not payloads, I think that point doesn't really address the issue here. As was also stated earlier in the thread, people (and nations) gravitate to chemical weapons because they are cheap. But their cheapness is mostly because they grant the ability to kill a large number of people when you don't have the means for accurate delivery. The result being that if someone is building chemical weapons to get around the fact that they don't have a large and well trained military, or special forces teams, or pin point accuracy munitions and the air superiority required to use them, or even particularly accurate rockets or artillery, it's a pretty good bet that the use of those chemical weapons will be broad and incredibly indiscriminate.


Lets not kid ourselves here. The reason to focus on chemical weapons is precisely because one knows they can't accurately hit their targets with conventional weapons. I could fire a hundred rockets with explosive payloads at a target and hope I score a hit, or I could fire one identically inaccurate rocket and as long as I hit near the target (and upwind), I'm going to kill it. Of course, I'll also kill everything else in the area as well, not just the unlucky folks who might get hit by a random rocket blast. That's the problem with chemical weapons. The very use case for the weapons virtually ensures that they'll only be used in situations where a large amount of collateral damage is going to occur (and often is the very point of the attack).

Edited, Dec 7th 2012 3:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Dec 07 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
gbaji wrote:
But their cheapness is mostly because they grant the ability to kill a large number of people when you don't have the means for accurate delivery.


That's because you're assuming the target. If your target is "everyone and everything", then it's fairly accurate. I'm sure that everyone that is meant to be safe is safe.

gbaji wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves here. The reason to focus on chemical weapons is precisely because one knows they can't accurately hit their targets with conventional weapons.


Not at all. The reason is because no one wants to be on the other end of it. Again, if you're at war and you're willing to nuke a city, then you're not concerned of "innocent people". Those people ARE your targets. You are seeking TOTAL DESTRUCTION, so at that point, chemical and biological weapons are VERY ACCURATE.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#74 Dec 10 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Um...? That's a very "interesting" definition of accurate.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Dec 10 2012 at 4:21 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Please provide a contradicting definition.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#76 Dec 10 2012 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
I love this thread so much.

Screenshot
____________________________
Banh
#77 Dec 10 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
When your goal is to destroy everything you can't miss.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#78 Dec 11 2012 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
Spoonless wrote:
I love this thread so much.
It's like watching two lemmings headbutt each other over and over again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Dec 11 2012 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
gbaji vs alma makes up the bulk of the content here.

See what happens?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#80 Dec 11 2012 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji vs alma makes up the bulk of the content here.

See what happens?

~5 posts out of 80 is "the bulk"? really? Even on this forum, I agree with Gbaji on more topics than not. You're clearly making stuff up to get attention.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#81 Dec 11 2012 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
When your goal is to destroy everything you can't miss.


Basically this. Accuracy somewhat implies hitting targets you want to hit, while not hitting those you don't. Assuming you always want to hit everyone in an area so as to declare an inherently inaccurate weapon accurate kinda misses the whole point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Dec 11 2012 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
When your goal is to destroy everything you can't miss.


Basically this. Accuracy somewhat implies hitting targets you want to hit, while not hitting those you don't. Assuming you always want to hit everyone in an area so as to declare an inherently inaccurate weapon accurate kinda misses the whole point.


But that's the point of the creation of the weapon, to hit everything. Weapons are created to deal damage at varying levels. Now, if your point was to kill 2 people with an atom bomb, then you would be right. However, if your goal is to wipe out a city, a hand gun is NOT accurate. That's when you use the A-Bomb.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#83 Dec 11 2012 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A federal appeals court ruled today that Illinois has 180 days to create some form of concealed carry legislation (IL was the sole state with no tolerance for CC). Still no ruling on allowing us to conceal chemical weapons though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Dec 11 2012 at 6:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Well because chemical weapons aren't accurate enough! D'uh!
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#85 Dec 11 2012 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Almalieque wrote:
But that's the point of the creation of the weapon, to hit everything. Weapons are created to deal damage at varying levels. Now, if your point was to kill 2 people with an atom bomb, then you would be right. However, if your goal is to wipe out a city, a hand gun is NOT accurate. That's when you use the A-Bomb.


Again with the unique definition of accurate. Accuracy has to do with how close to a specific target you can hit. It refers to the delivery system *not* the payload. The payload determines what effect occurs at the target point. So a bullet puts a small hole right at the point of impact. A small explosive might detonate and spread shrapnel within a given radius. A larger explosive will affect a larger area. A nuclear weapon even larger (and more complete). A chemical weapon will expand from the point of impact and spread out depending on wind and terrain conditions.

If you have a ballistic missile that can consistently hit within 100M of the target point, it's always less accurate than a bullet fired from a handgun which can consistently hit within a foot or so of the intended target point. Obviously, range and payload considerations are important, but to suggest that an atomic bomb fired via ballistic missile is "more accurate" simply because it affects a larger area is complete lunacy. It's more correct to say that the atomic bomb doesn't need to be as accurate. Same applies to some degree with chemical weapons. You fire them at an area, not a single specific target. But that's part of the reason why we tend to care more about guns versus chemical weapons. You *can* fire a gun with a simple bullet at a single selected target and affect just that target. You *can't* do this with a rocket carrying a chemical weapon payload.


At the end of the day though, the one statement you made that was absolutely correct is that the point of the weapon is to hit an area and everyone in it. And that's precisely why it's more problematic than weapons firing more traditional payloads.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Dec 11 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Obviously, range and payload considerations are important, but to suggest that an atomic bomb fired via ballistic missile is "more accurate" simply because it affects a larger area is complete lunacy.


I didn't say that. I said an atomic bomb is accurate because it attacks all of the desired targets. You're making the assumption that just because the area affected was large that the attacker did not intend for the entire area to be affected. The world has an armory of varying weapons to the point that if a person only wanted to attack a single building, they would use a different weapon. People don't plan on using Weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!! to kill 2 people. They intend to destroy a large area and SINCE THAT IS THEIR INTENT, it is accurate. Not simply because its a large area.

Edited, Dec 12th 2012 5:28pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#87 Dec 11 2012 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Dec 11 2012 at 9:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
I'm glad that you finally see the error in your ways. You misstated my claim.

In other news, with the latest mall shooting that just happened, it's only a matter of time before the US acts out of emotion and capriciously make gun-control laws.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#89 Dec 11 2012 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,987 posts
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#90 Dec 11 2012 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.

Shhh... he's still pretending to be in the military. He knows ALL.
#91 Dec 12 2012 at 12:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A federal appeals court ruled today that Illinois has 180 days to create some form of concealed carry legislation (IL was the sole state with no tolerance for CC). Still no ruling on allowing us to conceal chemical weapons though.
Chemical weapons are only considered appropriate for personal scale self defense in a few compounds in Montana.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#92 Dec 12 2012 at 5:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,579 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Chemical weapons are only considered appropriate for personal scale self defense in a few compounds in Montana.


And pretty much everywhere else
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#93 Dec 12 2012 at 5:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,577 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Chemical weapons are only considered appropriate for personal scale self defense in a few compounds in Montana.


And pretty much everywhere else
I should have said "Lethal" chemical weapons. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#94 Dec 12 2012 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
Well, seeing as there is no such thing as a nonlethal classification anymore ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#95 Dec 12 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.


As mentioned, please provide a contradicting definition.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#96 Dec 12 2012 at 9:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
Accuracy is the degree of conformity of a measured or calculated quantity to its actual (true) value.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#97 Dec 12 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,987 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.


As mentioned, please provide a contradicting definition.


Several people already have. Even Gbaji has provided you with a workable definition, and he has a long standing vendetta against definitions of commonly used words and dictionaries of all types.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#98 Dec 12 2012 at 11:34 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.


As mentioned, please provide a contradicting definition.


Several people already have. Even Gbaji has provided you with a workable definition, and he has a long standing vendetta against definitions of commonly used words and dictionaries of all types.


No one has provided an actual definition that contradicts that claim. Gbaji claimed that my argument was simply due to the weapon affecting a large area. Since I did not say that, his claim did not address my statement. If you want to cop out because you don't have a definition, that's fine, else just accept the fact that you're wrong.

Let's play another game. I'll define the word and you tell me how using WMD to attack a city does not qualify.


1: freedom from mistake or error : correctness
2a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision


the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#99 Dec 12 2012 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
If you literally define your target as hitting everyone and everything, then sure they're accurate. Assuming you don't want to kill your own people though, I could see an argument for inaccuracy when you have chemicals being blown around by changing winds or something.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#100 Dec 12 2012 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
Couldn't you argue that it's accurate, but not precise? Or am I confusing the two terms?
____________________________
Banh
#101 Dec 12 2012 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
Think so. Though I suspect that has the same problem. Can I reproducibly place payload somewhere? Well sure, the target is everything. Anywhere it lands is adequate. If the shells land 2 meters apart or 200 meters both are equally precise in this highly digitized scenario... Smiley: rolleyes

Maybe we should have a philosophical discussion about whether or not you can have accuracy without inaccuracy?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CDT
Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (41)