This is just too hilarious. Neither Michael Wilson nor Tom Blanton can bring themselves to face my argument for NORAD, no matter how much I shame them about it avoiding it. And yet for some reason they can't let the matter drop, either. They're compelled to always attempt one last content-free snark, giving me yet another opportunity to point out that my argument stands unanswered. They're like bugs that just can't fly away from the bug zapper.
Repeating from @105 for the memory-impaired: “the point of NORAD is so that nuclear opponents won’t think they can achieve a successful surprise first strike.”
@114 wasn’t completely useless; it explains why Blanton can find a way to lose at tic-tac-toe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ply_(game_theory)
“NORAD is not much help in a world where people use [asymmetrical warfare].”
Wrong. There are still thousands of strategic nuclear weapons in the world. Would you seriously claim that there is no longer any point in having a system to detect whether some of them are inbound? Unless you can claim that, you just aren’t disagreeing with me.
Saying NORAD is not useless is hardly the same thing as denying that asymmetrical threats exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring.
It’s very obvious what’s going on here. You don’t feel it’s edgy/cool/controversial enough to say A: “NORAD is not much help against assymetrical opponents”. So instead you make the sweeping claim B: “NORAD is not much help in a world where people use [asymmetrical warfare]“. This sounds edgy/cool/controversial, but unfortunately issimply false. This world, called Earth, has both nuclear ballistic missilesand asymmetric warriors. You were trying to pretend that (A) and (B) have the same semantics, in order to dodge the argument that the omnimalevolent state actually does something useful by running NORAD.
Sorry, but that trick just ain’t gonna fly.
Unless in your next response you can actually type “there is no longer any point in having a system to detect whether ballistic missiles are inbound”, I invite readers to decide for themselves whether you actually defend the claim that I’m disagreeing with.
No, you were trying to use sleight of hand to dismiss as “non-effective” one of the few services of the omnimalevolent state that minarchists would argue has been both legitimate and effective.
And you would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for us meddling kids.
Readers here don’t need to be told which side here thinks “facts and logic don’t matter” regarding the question of whether it is still useful to detect incoming ballistic missiles.
Perl, Kristol, Qaida, “militarism”, flying carpets, etc. — more entrants in an unending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring parade.
But the funniest thing here is how they just keep coming back for more, without the slightest intention of substantive debate. Reminds me of this guy: [the Black Knight]
Michael, one can’t “twist” one’s own words. I’m just stating my position on NORAD and asking you to confirm my suspicion, based on your earlier NORAD hyperbole, that you disagree with it.
It’s somewhat obvious why you refuse to either agree or disagree with my position. Disagreeing would be silly, and agreeing would undercut your earlier hyperbole — so you keep blowing smoke.
I left a series of clues for you. See if you can piece together my position from them:
@105 The point of NORAD is so that nuclear opponents won’t think they can achieve a successful surprise first strike.
@113 There are still thousands of strategic nuclear weapons in the world. Would you seriously claim that there is no longer any point in having a system to detect whether some of them are inbound?
@116 Repeating from @105 for the memory-impaired: “the point of NORAD is so that nuclear opponents won’t think they can achieve a successful surprise first strike.”
@120 There are still thousands of strategic nuclear weapons in the world. Would you seriously claim that there is no longer any point in having a system to detect whether some of them are inbound? Unless you can claim that, you just aren’t disagreeing with me.
@123 one of the few services of the omnimalevolent state that minarchists would argue has been both legitimate and effective.
@127 whether it is still useful to detect incoming ballistic missiles.
Ah, so my mistake was not realizing that you sometimes favor keeping a government program even if it is “pretty much non-effective”, and even if you are “doubtful” it will ever be used in the future.
Michael @134, I think there should be room in the LP for people who hold these anarchists beliefs, and the LP’s foundational texts should neither mandate them nor contradict them. That’s why I support the St. Louis Accord.
Fact N: As long as there exists a strategic nuclear arsenal capable of attempting a first strike on America’s, then in any potential nuclear-blackmail crisis we want that arsenal’s owners to worry that we might go to a launch-on-warning posture.
Fact N is an undeniable feature of the Real World inhabited by grownups. Blanton doesn’t want to face Fact N, so he digs deep into his toychest of red herrings: teddy bears, arousal, dope smugglers, trucks, skin colors, burkas, hijackers, bomb shelters, etc.
And for good measure, Blanton throws in some bonus fallacies: 1) the Excluded Middle between complete immunity to nukes and abject vulnerability to them, 2) the False Alternative of preparing for either old threats or new threats, and 3) the False Alternative of either keeping NORAD or practicing non-interventionism.
The more logical fallacies Blanton throws out, the more desperate you can tell he is to flee from Fact N. But Fact N just won’t go away, no matter how fast Blanton runs. Wherever he runs, Fact N is already true there.
But my favorite part is where Blanton concedes that the standard NORAD analysis “sounds quite reasonable”. You can almost hear the cognitive dissonance grinding away inside his skull.
OK, let’s hear the next excuse that comes out of Blanton’s toychest to try to distract from Fact N.
Right on cue, the next herring is literally red: Santa.
Fact N remains. Fact N doesn’t sleep.
What was that Blanton quote @125? Oh yeah: “facts and logic don’t matter".
