Raedwulf,

"FFS, Bruce, the crucial one didn't go off, did it? The one above all others that required HUMAN intervention. What you have done repeatedly, and as per fucking usual, is evade & ignore anything you can't actually bloody well answer. YOU said (and I quote) "There have been at least three known US crashes with live warheads". I challenged you to give details, and all you do is weasel."

In the military world, a live warhead is one cAPABLE of going off, not just one that explodes.




"What dates, what planes, what weapons, what happened? Until you give an answer to that, anything you say is worthless."

See Iains Date: 29 Nov 17 - 05:05 PM
I believe there was one other case, with a warhead dropped due to bad weathwr, but the warhead was NOT determined to have been armed- the paperwork was incomplete, and the bomb was never located.




"What dates, what planes, what weapons, what happened? Not forgetting what percentages? Who used them? Where were they used? When were they used? Apart from the fact that Dead Kennedy was an idiot i.e. was a politician (sorry, did I just offend you? Hard luck) whatever his judgement was then is hardly relevant to a scenario 50+ years later."

JFK was an idiot who nearly started WWIII, and who probably killed Marilyn Monroe after getting her pregnant.




"IF the analysis is correct... As yet unproven... But you will, apparently, happily go to war on the basis of an unproven, highly dodgy article written by an academic on topics outside of his qualifications. "

I would NOT go to war, but if the opposing point cannot be argued from a factual basis, the US might well do so. WHY ARE YOU BLAMING ME FOR WANTING TO KNOW WHAT THE FLAWS ( that I HOPE are in the analysis) ARE????





"Frankly I'm getting sick of both you & Don. I've asked both of you a direct question. Try answering. You're a pair of weasels (which is doing a disservice to weasels, if I'm honest). You're a pair of cowards. When you're challenged directly, you'd rather run away. Bad, poor, deliberately dishonest debaters, the pair of you."


YOU have not demonstrated that you can even read the opening post. I stated:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see some sane comments about the following article

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/11/29/deterring_north_korea_a_reckless_gamble_we_cannot_afford__112695.html

by Kevin R. James, a Research Fellow in the Systemic Risk Centre at the London School of Economics

PLEASE READ BEFORE MAKING COMMENTS!!!

The premise presented is as follows:

"Choosing to deter North Korea is to engage in a gamble: you avoid the costs of a preventive war today when North Korea is relatively weak, but you run the risk of an accidental nuclear war later when North Korea is vastly more powerful. Using plausible estimates of the probability of accidental nuclear war derived from the U.S.-Soviet experience during the Cold War, I find that gambling on deterrence will lead to 7.5 million U.S.-South Korean-Japanese deaths on average (under optimistic assumptions) while a preventive war now will lead to 1.4 million deaths (under pessimistic assumptions). So, not only is deterrence a gamble, it is a reckless and foolish one. Preventive war is the wise and prudent response to North Korea's nuclear threat."

I do NOT like the conclusion, but the facts and analysis presented seem valid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

DEBATE all you want about whether preventive war is a good idea or not, but I am asking if sane people can see any flaw in the analysis.
You have brought up valid questions as to the assumptions, but unless YOU support a better set that is more in accord with the past events that he uses, you have not advanced a negation of the premise.

But thank you for at least being the most reasonable person ( other than Rap) to reply here.