Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

The logic you've never once found a flaw in ....

The flaw lies in your claim that your conscious awareness is irrelevant to the logic you continue to postulate.

The concept of logic can only exist in your conscious awareness.  Outside conscious awareness, there is nothing to perceive or contemplate or analyse or deduce logical conclusions.

Do you honestly presume that the logic you keep quoting just falls into your conscious awareness from a series of events entirely derived from unavoidable reactions to previous events?  And how can your awareness possibly have the means to discriminate true logic from bad if it is just the end result of a series of inevitable reactions to past events?

Can you not see that it is only within your conscious awareness that you have the power conceive of any form of logic?
And do you not realise that such power can never be achieved from the logic you continue to quote?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yup, I left that bit out because it is completely irrelevant. If I make some nebulous and unjustified demands and then say I somehow have the right to murder innocent people unless those nebulous and unjustified demands are met it makes absolutely zero difference to the appalling and unjustifiable call to murder as many people as possible. And even less when that murderous call was actually carried out.

Thanks for confirming that you can't be trusted to post a quote in its entirety.

I thought it was more honest to link to Sam Harris's full quote on his own website while I quoted the bits I thought were problematic - you know - "the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own" and then after contemplating the murder of millions of innocent foreign civilians, Sam Harris suggests that "it may be the only course of action available".

But hey, I guess you and I have different values, thankfully, given you're an apologist for Sam Harris's lunatic ideas about how mass murder against civilians in a pre-emptive nuclear strike may be the only course of action available. Bit too extreme for me. 

And by the way the demands are bonkers

Bonkers? Bit like Sam Harris's lunatic ideas about how mass murder against civilians in a pre-emptive nuclear strike may be the only course of action available. Agree with you there.

the holy mosque [in Mecca] was not controlled by the americans let alone all the american's allies (who are the target of Bin Laden's murderous demand of muslims). It is, and was, under the control of the Saudi government so if Bin Laden has beef, then it is with them. Likewise the al-Aqsa Mosque which was and is under the control of a palestinian islamic trust independent from the Israeli government (note that from 2000, prior to the WTC attacks no non-muslims are even allowed to visit the mosque). And, of course, at the point Bin Laden was making these statements there was very little presence of US troops in Muslim countries and the most recent major incursion (if you can call it that) was to support Bosnian muslims. And finally an individual muslim, such as Bin Laden has no right whatsoever to dictate to countries across the globe, regardless of whether they might have muslim majorities, who they should and who they should not have as allies and who they might invite to have military bases on their soil.

Bin Laden's demands were simply a pathetic attempt to justify the unjustifiable - the unprovoked and completely unjustified murder of innocent people.

Do you really think that adding in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque somehow justifies a call to murder innocent people, let alone putting that call into practice by flying planes into the WTC? Do you VG?

I feel sorry that you feel you have to act as such an apologist for a mass murderer. It really is pathetic.

Now you're giving me too many choices - decisions, decisions - do I change my name to Pathetic Gabriella or Beneath Contempt Gabriella as I can't work out which one you're having more fun with. I'll have a think about if it's possible to combine the two without it being too unwieldy -  PBCG?

I did not suggest putting in the end of the quote in order to justify flying planes into the WTC. I suggested you put the whole quote in so you don't seem dishonest.

You have not linked to the Bin Laden quotes to establish when they were made - it would be more honest if you did. Just taking your word for stuff on this particular issue hasn't worked out too well thus far, probably due to your prejudices.

As I mentioned in my previous post, which you seem to be having a little trouble comprehending - I'm fairly certain that when people point out instances of unethical US foreign policy, e.g. its habit of funding militants, and its habit of arming dictators in the Muslim World, they are not justifying passenger jets being flown into the WTC.

I think they are just pointing out that an unethical US foreign policy propping up dictators (eg. the Shah in Iran resulting in the Iranian Revolution) or US troop presence in Saudi to defend Saudi during and after the 1991 Gulf War or funding militants or selling arms to dictators could be a pretty dangerous way to run a country as it generates anti-American feelings, which are likely to come back to bite the USA.

For example the US unofficial policy of the CIA helping recruit militants from radical Muslim groups to fight the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, and arming and financially supporting those militants, some of whom went on to carry out terrorist attacks - came back to bite the USA. Bin Laden was one of the militants who went to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets. So the US seemed fine with militants using violence to fight other countries for what they wanted. That might be a clue as to how Bin Laden the individual had the confidence to make demands of the US or dictate to countries across the globe. Plus Afghanistan is where Bin Laden hung out with the founder of Hamas. And Hamas were opposing Israel in the 1980s and 1990s while Israel carried out a policy of deportations, demolition of homes, collective punishment, curfews and the suppression of political institutions in the Occupied Territories. So you can see how US support for Israel could lead to anti-American feeling, especially after the 1990 "Al Aqsa massacre" when Israeli police fired live ammunition at and killed Palestinian civilians. 

You're perfectly entitled to hold an opinion that Israel should remain in occupation of the whole of Jerusalem  - but we can observe that occupied people tend to fight back with whatever means are at their disposal including terrorism.

The US firing missiles at Sudan in 1998 and blowing up a pharmaceutical factory that turned out not to be manufacturing chemical weapons for Al-Qaeda but was supplying medicines for rural communities - would have stirred up a lot of anti-American feeling.

Chris Hitchens had an interesting analysis of this incident. https://www.salon.com/1998/09/23/news_114/

 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And of course you have conveniently left out the next sentence:

"This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah." - so this is nothing to do with some recent claim of grievance, but more about the need to be seen to fulfil and ancient religious claim. I believe these words are from the Koran, written some 1500 years before any of the claimed grievances. I trust you don't interpret these words in the manner that Bin Laden did, but he clear interpreted them as justifying murder of innocent people

Funny the reasons different people can use when they contemplate mass murder, including pre-emptive nuclear strikes on innocent foreign civilians. I think Sam Harris mentioned a belief that a first nuclear strike against civilians may be the only way for him to survive.

Some Muslims take the reason from their beliefs about a book regarding a 7th century battle. Some Americans rely on beliefs relating to patriotism and freedom and survival to justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Does your prejudice mean you feel more outraged if innocent people are killed based on a religious belief rather than non-religious beliefs?

And you have also conveniently left out the later passage:

We, with Allah's help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

That's the sentence in its entirety - no longer any claimed 'just cause', simply a clear call for all muslims to murder americans - and now this seems no longer about any kind of perceived grievance but simply a call to murder people and be rewarded for it.

Oh sorry I didn't realise you wanted me to quote more stuff from Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri's 1998 Fatwa. I'm sure you meant to include the start of the quote and just forgot:

All these sins and crimes committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger and Muslims.

Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."
On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in every country in which it is possible to do it...

We, with God's help, call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

Did you want me to quote the "sins and crimes committed by Americans" according to the document? Tell you what, here's a link to the whole document - in the interests of honesty and transparency in case you accidentally leave any more bits out while quoting from it. https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

One of the crimes they seem to be referring to is the sanctions against Iraq that were met with widespread condemnation for its humanitarian impact. I believe 2 UN Weapons inspectors resigned in protest over the sanctions.

Who would have thought it eh - that killing people leads to people trying to kill you? Some might call it a cycle of violence.

Another "crime" was the presence of US troops in Saudi. I know you like your Gallup polls as evidence - so here's one from 2008. I know it's long after 9/11 so it's possible the Muslims surveyed weren't upset about US troop presence in Saudi at the time the fatwa/ statement was issued by Bin Laden and his associates and only became upset in 2008. https://news.gallup.com/poll/114007/opinion-briefing-image-middle-east-north-africa.aspx.

Majority of Saudis rated withdrawal from Iraq (59%), closing Guantanamo Bay prison (56%), and removing military bases from their country (52%) as actions the United States could take that would improve their opinion very significantly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_United_States_troops_from_Saudi_Arabia

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As far as I can see all he is doing is that if you know that someone is going to kill you and you cannot stop them by a threat to kill them (due to their ideology) then the only way to save your own life may be to kill them first.

So an analogy:

Imagine you have a gun and another person has a sword and is determined to kill you - under most circumstances if you threatened to shoot them that would be enough to stop them attacking you. However if the sword wielder doesn't care whether they die, indeed thinks death would be glorious then your threat to shoot them isn't going to work. So the only way to avoid being killed may be to shoot them first.

Seems pretty self evident. Why is that such a difficult thing to understand Vlad. But of course, Harris' only 'crime' is to write this down, which for some reason makes him some appalling person in the eyes of Vlad, and equivalent to a person who led an organisation that deliberately murdered thousands of innocent people in the eyes of VG.

Sorry missed this. That is not the correct analogy. The correct analogy is:

Imagine you have an M4 Carbine machine gun and another person in your neighbourhood has an M4 Carbine machine gun and is determined to kill you - under most circumstances if you threatened to shoot the whole neighbourhood if anyone threatened to kill you by shooting up the whole neighbourhood, that would be enough to stop them attacking you. However if your opponent  doesn't care whether they die, indeed thinks death would be glorious then your threat to shoot the whole neighbourhood isn't going to work. The other problem is you don't know where this other lunatic is. So the only way to avoid being killed may be to take your M4 Carbine machine gun and kill everyone else in the neighbourhood in an uncontrolled spray of bullets, including the children at the local nurseries and primary schools who are being dropped off by their parents, in case the person trying to kill you is one of the parents.

I am surprised that this seems a pretty self-evident idea to PD? It sounds like a lunatic idea to me and I have no idea why Harris would write this idea down. To me the idea is equivalent to the lunatic ideas of Bin Laden. I suggest you don't misrepresent me though and say I think their crimes are equivalent - it just makes you look dishonest. I don't think it makes Sam Harris equivalent to Bin Laden in terms of actual crimes committed.

[torridon]

My argument is that the automated nature of sub conscious brain activity is incapable of generating what we consciously perceive to be logical deductions and conclusions. 
So either:
i) our ability to consciously direct our thoughts to reach logical conclusions is an illusion,
or
ii) our conscious directives are enacted by a means beyond human understanding.

Option ii) is just euphemism for 'it's magic, innit' and such thinking is just an abdication of the effort to grow understanding.

Your claim that non-conscious brain functioning is incapable of logic and reason needs unpacking and needs justification.  The insight that subconscious mind drives conscious mind is not new, it goes back to Freud and modern sciences of the mind support this

[Stranger]

The flaw lies in your claim that your conscious awareness is irrelevant to the logic you continue to postulate.

That's not actually what I said. I said that the role of consciousness in choice-making (and reasoning) was irrelevant to the argument against your impossible version of free will. This is clearly the case because it doesn't make any reference at all to consciousness one way or another.

You seem to be finding that very difficult to grasp. How about writing out 100 times until it sticks in your head?

The concept of logic can only exist in your conscious awareness.  Outside conscious awareness, there is nothing to perceive or contemplate or analyse or deduce logical conclusions.

Again, since you cannot control what your next conscious thought will be, at least some of the processing of logical problem solving is going on subconsciously. When you're actually thinking about a logical problem for which there is no obvious solution, for example, the puzzle you posted some time ago here (actually that was an example of a particular type of mathematical problem to which there is a standard approach, but let's assume you didn't know that), or similar, you can decide to 'mull it over' but you have no control over when, or even if, a good idea or strategy will occur to you.

Some complex problems actually do (in my experience, anyway) benefit from from a break from consciously thinking about them. I've sometimes been totally stumped by a particularly difficult problem, only to find that sometimes 'sleeping on it' does literally work, and I've woken up the next day with the answer.

So your claim is both demonstrably wrong and still irrelevant to the argument.

Do you honestly presume that the logic you keep quoting just falls into your conscious awareness from a series of events entirely derived from unavoidable reactions to previous events?  And how can your awareness possibly have the means to discriminate true logic from bad if it is just the end result of a series of inevitable reactions to past events?

Now you're yet again trying to tie my argument to a particular role for consciousness (which it doesn't involve) and again appealing to personal incredulity. 

Can you not see that it is only within your conscious awareness that you have the power conceive of any form of logic?
And do you not realise that such power can never be achieved from the logic you continue to quote?

No.

You have still failed to produce the first hint of an argument that could resolve the basic self-contradiction in your version of free will. What's more, you never will as long as you try to make the argument about the role of the conscious mind, because that literally makes not one iota of a difference to the logic. It would apply equally to a fantasy world in which consciousness was in total control of everything (which it obviously isn't) all the way through to the other extreme where it's a literally useless by-product of some underlying processing. In both cases, and at all points in-between, your version of free will is still self-contradictory.

[jeremyp]

No he isn't. Yes I have read it. Have you?

You clearly haven't read Sam's article or watched the interview because at no point does he advocate a nuclear first strike on a Muslim nation. What he says is that a nuclear strike may be the consequence of allowing Muslim extremists to run a state that has long range nuclear weapons. He doesn't want it any more than you do which is why he writes on the topic of religious extremism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You clearly haven't read Sam's article or watched the interview because at no point does he advocate a nuclear first strike on a Muslim nation. What he says is that a nuclear strike may be the consequence of allowing Muslim extremists to run a state that has long range nuclear weapons. He doesn't want it any more than you do which is why he writes on the topic of religious extremism.

I clearly have read the passage from Sam's book. Have you?

He was talking about an Islamist regime that had acquired long-range nuclear weapons in his book.

He clearly uses the words "nuclear first strike"  and clearly indicates it is his side that will carry it out. It is a consequence as well but he is the one saying the "nuclear first strike" is an action his government may have to take when he says it "may be the only course of action available".

He then envisages the death of "tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day" and says "but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."

He says this is a plausible scenario based on his assessment that it may be the only course of action available when you're not sure if the WMD is ready to be deployed and if you can't destroy WMD using targeted, conventional weapons because you don't know their exact location. So he says a nuclear first strike of our own on the Islamist regime's country, indiscriminately killing millions of civilians, may be the only thing likely to ensure his survival and the survival of many other inhabitants of the USA.

But then this is the USA so such stupidity should be expected. After all this is the country where despite the intelligence community’s unequivocal conclusion that Iraq had nothing to do with either 9/11 or al-Qaida, the administration let Americans believe the contrary.

The United States went to war in Iraq on a false pretense that it was somehow avenging those killed by al-Qaida. A Washington Post poll conducted two years after 9/11 dramatically illustrated the story: 69% of Americans at the time believed Saddam Hussein was “personally” involved in the 9/11 attack. Even more staggering, 82% believed Saddam provided assistance to Osama bin Laden. Both were utterly false. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/09/17/9-11-and-iraq-the-making-of-a-tragedy/

[Sriram]

The war against Iraq and the execution of Saddam Hussein were the result of a personal vow taken by George Bush because of the perceived insult to his father.  He dragged the whole country into it.   

[Dicky Underpants]

Option ii) is just euphemism for 'it's magic, innit' and such thinking is just an abdication of the effort to grow understanding.

Your claim that non-conscious brain functioning is incapable of logic and reason needs unpacking and needs justification.  The insight that subconscious mind drives conscious mind is not new, it goes back to Freud and modern sciences of the mind support this

In fact it goes further back to Eduard von Hartmann's "Philosophy of the Unconscious" and Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Idea).

[jeremyp]

I clearly have read the passage from Sam's book. Have you?

How come you can't comprehend what he says in it?

He was talking about an Islamist regime that had acquired long-range nuclear weapons in his book.

Yes. Do you deny that it could happen?

He clearly uses the words "nuclear first strike" 

Which he says would be an unthinkable crime.

and clearly indicates it is his side that will carry it out.

But only if it is the only alternative to everybody being obliterated by crazy Islamic extremists. His whole point is that we must not let it get to that point.

I truly don't understand why you can't see that. Vlad is just being his usual troll worthy self but you have more intelligence than that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How come you can't comprehend what he says in it?

I can comprehend what Sam Harris wrote. Which is why I keep pointing out that Sam Harris saying that a pre-emptive strike "may be the only course of action available" is a lunatic idea by Sam Harris.

Yes. Do you deny that it could happen?

Not at all. Apart from it being a distinct possibility, I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future so it would be illogical to deny 'something' could happen unless the 'something' was shown to be impossible.

Which he says would be an unthinkable crime.
But only if it is the only alternative to everybody being obliterated by crazy Islamic extremists.

That's why I think Sam is a lunatic -  it's not an alternative to everyone being obliterated.  A nuclear first strike by the US against innocent civilians would be all the justification any equally trigger-happy foreign or local entity with nuclear weapons would need to initiate retaliatory counter-strikes against USA to prevent the USA having the capability to make any more nuclear strikes.

His whole point is that we must not let it get to that point. I truly don't understand why you can't see that. Vlad is just being his usual troll worthy self but you have more intelligence than that.

I agree with that point that we must not let it get to that point. Hence we must do what we can to try to steer the USA away from its dodgy trigger-happy foreign policy that arms dictators and militants and blindly supports Israel - as that is part of the equation that leads to people like Bin Laden being able to inspire and recruit supporters to carry out his orders. When Saddam used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurds in Halabja in 1988, the US tried to blame the attack on Iran in order to cover up for Saddam because Saddam was a USA ally, and the US were arming and funding Saddam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre.

Not really very surprising then that Bin Laden took the same view as the USA - that civilian lives are expendable and mass murder was excusable if it furthered your own interests. Which may be why Bin Laden and other terrorists like him are not too fussed about 3000+ dead civilians in the USA.

As far as my intelligence goes, my intelligence tells me moderate Muslims already have campaigns to counter radicalisation and extremism and already provide information to the security services where they have any actual evidence to cause them to suspect someone is plotting an act of terrorism.

My intelligence also tells me that Sam Harris and his apologists are more interested in perpetuating negative stereotypes about Muslims than trying to stop terrorism, if they think moderate Muslims should bear all the responsibility to talk extremists down from their extreme views while the USA carries on with its unethical foreign policy.

Given the widespread criticism of US foreign policy and actions by sections of the mainstream media and by a variety of political commentators, my intelligence tells me that moderate Muslims will probably have less success in combatting Muslim extremism than that of the moderate US voters who tried to persuade Trump-supporting conspiracy theorists that the elections were fair and not to storm the Capitol building in Washington DC (based on their belief of widespread voter fraud) .   

My intelligence tells me that Sam Harris's thinking is very dangerous and Sam Harris's lunatic idea about a nuclear first strike being any kind of solution is part of the problem.

[Sriram]

Option ii) is just euphemism for 'it's magic, innit' and such thinking is just an abdication of the effort to grow understanding.

Your claim that non-conscious brain functioning is incapable of logic and reason needs unpacking and needs justification.  The insight that subconscious mind drives conscious mind is not new, it goes back to Freud and modern sciences of the mind support this

The fact that the Unconscious mind is capable of reasoning and foresight and the fact that it influences our conscious mind and actions...is what makes many people believe in a subtle but intelligent influence in their lives. This is one of the major reasons for believing in an unseen superior intelligence (Implicit pattern learning).

When people talk of a universal subtle intelligence being within ourselves....this is probably what they mean (collective unconscious).

[torridon]

The fact that the Unconscious mind is capable of reasoning and foresight and the fact that it influences our conscious mind and actions...is what makes many people believe in a subtle but intelligent influence in their lives. This is one of the major reasons for believing in an unseen superior intelligence (Implicit pattern learning).

When people talk of a universal subtle intelligence being within ourselves....this is probably what they mean (collective unconscious).

The idea that intelligence is evidence that is must have been created by something intelligent is going nowhere useful.  It's just circular thinking.

[jeremyp]

That's why I think Sam is a lunatic

You think Sam Harris is a lunatic because he says that a nuclear first strike is an unthinkable crime?

it's not an alternative to everyone being obliterated.

It's a "what if" situation. If a bunch of dangerous madmen with the same mentality as those who flew planes into the twin towers of the WTC got hold of long range nuclear weapons, we might need to wipe them out before they had a chance to use them.

What would you dos in that situation?

A nuclear first strike by the US against innocent civilians would be all the justification any equally trigger-happy foreign or local entity with nuclear weapons would need to initiate retaliatory counter-strikes against USA to prevent the USA having the capability to make any more nuclear strikes.

Who said anything about it being the USA that does it?

I agree with that point that we must not let it get to that point. Hence we must do what we can to try to steer the USA away from its dodgy trigger-happy foreign policy that arms dictators and militants and blindly supports Israel

Why are you making this about the USA? It's not about the USA.

[Sriram]

The idea that intelligence is evidence that is must have been created by something intelligent is going nowhere useful.  It's just circular thinking.

You are not getting the point. If the unconscious mind is intelligent and powerful and also influences our lives without our awareness....people are correct in inferring that a subtle but powerful influence is present in their lives....by whatever name they might call it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a "what if" situation. If a bunch of dangerous madmen with the same mentality as those who flew planes into the twin towers of the WTC got hold of long range nuclear weapons, we might need to wipe them out before they had a chance to use them.

First of all he isn't talking about wiping out a couple of dozen madmen but millions in a first strike. It will apparently be necessary to do this to wipe out the state he invites us to contemplate.

Were he only thinking of targetting key personnel that would be sensible and show he has some understanding of combat as it is carried out but he seems out of his depth.

He is as they say just Willy waving.

[jeremyp]

First of all he isn't talking about wiping out a couple of dozen madmen but millions in a first strike.

Nobody said he wasn't talking about it. He himself called it an unthinkable crime.

It will apparently be necessary to do this to wipe out the state he invites us to contemplate.

Tell us then. What would you have done if Al Qaida had managed to take control of the government in Pakistan and they were planning to launch nuclear weapons at the USA?

Were he only thinking of targetting key personnel that would be sensible and show he has some understanding of combat as it is carried out but he seems out of his depth.

I don't think you have any understanding of the problems involved in that. Targeting key personnel is fine if you've got a few weeks to locate them, but if you have incontrovertible evidence that they will be launching their missiles within the hour, what do you do?

He is as they say just Willy waving.

No he isn't. He is expressing a genuine fear of what religious extremism might lead us to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody said he wasn't talking about it. He himself called it an unthinkable crime.
Tell us then. What would you have done if Al Qaida had managed to take control of the government in Pakistan and they were planning to launch nuclear weapons at the USA? I don't think you have any understanding of the problems involved in that. Targeting key personnel is fine if you've got a few weeks to locate them, but if you have incontrovertible evidence that they will be launching their missiles within the hour, what do you do?
No he isn't. He is expressing a genuine fear of what religious extremism might lead us to.

Presumably the sites pertaining to the nuclear capability of that country are known. It is unlikely then that Harris fantasy scenario applies. I would expect an earlier intervention before they got any where near the levers of power...as I would expect the Pakistani government to in any case. We know that extremists get in where there is a power vacuum. The idea of a winnable nuclear war for extremists is nonsense whatever there aims. They must know that non nuclear methods are better all round for gaining any military ground, after all there have been no nuclear wars for almost a century and the only one there was was one sided. What we have to worry about are countries with huge nuclear arsenals.

[jeremyp]

Presumably the sites pertaining to the nuclear capability of that country are known. It is unlikely then that Harris fantasy scenario applies.

It's called a hypothetical. Whilst no Muslim states have got long range nuclear weapons now, there's no reason why they won't in the future and there's no reason why such a country might not get taken over by Islamist fanatics.

I would expect an earlier intervention before they got any where near the levers of power

Your confidence is gratifying, but I don't share it.

...as I would expect the Pakistani government to in any case. We know that extremists get in where there is a power vacuum. The idea of a winnable nuclear war for extremists is nonsense whatever there aims. They must know that non nuclear methods are better all round for gaining any military ground, after all there have been no nuclear wars for almost a century and the only one there was was one sided. What we have to worry about are countries with huge nuclear arsenals.

You're making assumptions that these people would be rational in our terms. If you truly believe that God wants you to erase the infidels and you'll be rewarded in Heaven for doing it at the cost of your own life, our Western rationality doesn't apply.

And you are right: we do have to worry about countries with huge nuclear arsenals. The idea of a Christian fundamentalist in charge of the American nuclear arsenal really scares me. But the thing is, there's no reason why existential threats have to happen one at a time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The idea of a Christian fundamentalist in charge of the American nuclear arsenal really scares me.

How are you with an atheist autocrat in charge of the North Korean nuclear arsenal?

[jeremyp]

How are you with an atheist autocrat in charge of the North Korean nuclear arsenal?

What's that got to do with lunatic religionists who want to accelerate Armageddon?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's that got to do with lunatic religionists who want to accelerate Armageddon?

one exists.....the other exists in your imagination.

[Stranger]

one exists.....the other exists in your imagination.

You really do raise missing the point to entirely new levels. The point is that, while Kim Jong-un is a brutal dictator, who we'd much rather didn't have nuclear weapons, there is no reason at all to think that he'd regard his own death and the annihilation of his country was an acceptable, let alone desirable, result in order for him to destroy is enemies. The idea of deterrence still works.

The same would not be the case for some fundamentalist sects, that would regard their own deaths and those of countless others as a glorious and desirable outcome in order to rid the world of the evil unbelievers. If they really believe that they would be doing god's will and all 'true believers' would be martyrs who would go straight to paradise while everybody else would deserve their fate, then the whole notion of deterrence would be meaningless to them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really do raise missing the point to entirely new levels. The point is that, while Kim Jong-un is a brutal dictator, who we'd much rather didn't have nuclear weapons, there is no reason at all to think that he'd regard his own death and the annihilation of his country was an acceptable, let alone desirable, result in order for him to destroy is enemies. The idea of deterrence still works.

The same would not be the case for some fundamentalist sects, that would regard their own deaths and those of countless others as a glorious and desirable outcome in order to rid the world of the evil unbelievers. If they really believe that they would be doing god's will and all 'true believers' would be martyrs who would go straight to paradise while everybody else would deserve their fate, then the whole notion of deterrence would be meaningless to them.

Deluded and dangerous fantasy comparing a real atheist autocrat who has actually tooled his country up disproportionate to it's geopolitical position and your own personified fantasy hate figures.