The Instigator
hauki20
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

A nuclear attack will likely take place on US soil in the next ten years

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,931 times Debate No: 7137
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

hauki20

Pro

First of all, I would like my opponent to notice that I'm not talking about a nuclear war, but a single nuclear attack.

Nuclear attack in this case means an intended, not accidental, explosion of a nuclear weapon in the country of America.
Definition of a nuclear weapon: An explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

I, as Pro, must prove that it is likely that at least one intended nuclear attack will take place on US soil within the next ten years.
My opponent, as Con, must prove that it is not likely that a nuclear attack will take place in the US soil within the next ten years.

(Alaska and Hawaii are a part of America.)

My arguments:

Much of what is presented below is from a paper presented November, 2002 by the Director of Homeland Security Programs of the major supplier to the Federal Government of radiological detection instruments. Some of it is gleaned from my over 40 years of work in the nuclear industry, including 7 years as Chairman of a Nuclear Technology Program at a major southern college, 2 years at the DOE PANTEX FACILITY, 5 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory and 2 Years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

There are 4 basic problems concerning nuclear terrorism facing the U. S. today. These are [not in order of importance]:

(1) A terrorist act at a domestic nuclear facility such as

- A commercial nuclear reactor
- A DOE nuclear facility
- A commercial nuclear fuel enrichment or fabrication facility
- A university nuclear reactor

(2) Explosion of a "Dirty Bomb" in a public place such as

- A major city
- An amusement park
- A sports stadium
- An airport or sea port

(3) Release of radioactive material into and air or water supply

- An aerosol or other airborne radioactive material released into the air intake of a major building
- Radioactive material released into the water supply of a major city

(4) Explosion of a nuclear weapon

- There are over 200 documented cases of persons attempting to purchase special nuclear material (stuff to make bombs) or tactical nuclear weapons on the black market
- There are over 100 "suitcase bombs" missing from the Soviet nuclear inventory

The last one is by far the most important. The former head of Soviet National Security, Alexander Lebed testified to that fact before congress. He stated that the devices measure approximately 24" x 16" x 8" and can be set off by an individual in less than 30 minutes, producing a 1 kilo ton yield. Such a device, set off in New York Harbor would produce a 15 to 20 foot wave that would destroy New York City. Other sources have confirmed that the number of suitcase bombs missing from the Soviet inventory is correct.

Question: But how could nuclear bombs get into USA?
Answer: There are many possible ways it could come here without anyone ever knowing. It could come in as sea cargo. Less than 5% of sea cargo coming into America are inspected.
It could also come in as air cargo. FedEx, UPS and UPSP are not inspected!
It could come in across borders. Only a few border guards have equipment to detect radioactive material and even fewer know how to use them!

As we saw, the enemy, whether it being a terrorist organisation or anyone else who wishes to strike terror into the hearts of American people, could get for example suitcase bombs easily into America. It would also be possible to smuggle material which can be used to build a nuclear device, such as plutonium or uranium into USA.

I think we're in for a good debate :)
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

The term "likely" refers to probability. Probability is used to predict the results of random or pseudo-random patterns based on known data from the past in a similar context. However, there have only been two nuclear attacks in all of human history, both by the same actor, and both in completely different contexts than that today. We have insufficient data to even begin to make a probability judgment about such a thing. The resolution is epistemically incoherent. Since so far all of the documented incidents of attempts to purchase nuclear material on the black market have resulted in exactly zero nuclear attacks, we have exactly no data whatsoever about the percentage of such attempts that come to fruition in the form of an attack, and on the distribution of those attacks in terms of national jurisdiction.

From zero data, zero conclusion can be reached, under any useful system of epistemology-- or any system proposed at all except for "Faith." Faith being non-useful (it has no tendency to reach true conclusions), we are left with a world in which it is impossible to support the assertion of the applicability of the mathematical concept "likelihood" as to the occurrence, nature, location, or time of the next nuclear attack.
Debate Round No. 1
hauki20

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate :) Good luck.

During the Cold War there was a fear that USA and USSR (the Soviet Union) would start a nuclear war. However, it does not surprise me that there never was one. Why?

M.A.D. stands for Mutual Assured Destruction. It meant that if you would launch your nukes against the enemy, you would doom your country for a counter-attack, and in the end both countries would be a pile of garbage, as seen in the Fallout-game series. Knowing that if you launched your nukes, your country would be nuked in return kept the superpowers from doing something they would have regretted. However, nowadays the situation is a bit different. The propability of an all-out nuclear war has been reduced (however it is not impossible.) Now there is the threat of a single nuclear detonation in a major city, for example in New York. "Al Queda has no return address." If for instance Al Queda detonates a nuclear device in New York, what could we do? America can't send their nukes to a certain country because Al Queda doesn't have one. They hide in the caves in the middle of no man's land. We could do nothing. So, the terrorists have no reason NOT to attack America using nukes. Actually, I'm very surpised that America has not been already attacked with nuclear power.

I cannot present a mathematically calculated probability of a nuclear attack on the US soil. Neither do prosecutors in courts. They present EVIDENCE to show that the defendant did what he is accused of. They don't have to show the jury mathematical calculations, just evidence to back up their case. This is what I'm doing.

In my last post I presented logical evidence that it would be at least possible, or even easy to smuggle "suitcase bombs" or uranium/plutonium to the United States of America.

Question: Okay, say someone smuggled plutonium into America unnoticed. How would they build a nuclear bomb?
Answer: It would be very easy. There are articles on the internet and even books that give precise instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb or other weapons of mass destruction. One of them is called "How to Build a Nuclear Bomb" by Frank Barnaby. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
If I wanted to, I could go to www.amazon.com and buy the book for around four dollars ($4). So could any terrorist who has uranium and wants to strike USA hard.

Question: Understood. It would be easy to smuggle nuclear material into America and build a nuclear bomb. But wouldn't the police notice something?
Answer: Nope.

Question: But when how is he going to detonate a nuclear bomb in a major city?
Answer: Depends. Either they put the bomb in the truck of their car or rent a truck. It wouldn't be entirely impossible to steal a nuclear bomb from Russia. Bombs from the era of Cold War have relatively bad protection. Al Queda, for example, could send a group of terrorists to steal a warhead from the times of Cold War. After this they would just send the warhead via sea to, for instace, Canada. There they would rent a truck and they would be ready to strike. Or Iran could give them a warhead once they're done with their project. According to experts, Iran will have nukes after a year or two. If Iran would give a warhead to Al Queda, they could do the exact same and Iran would never be caught. Sorry, I got a little carried away. Summary: They could place a small nuclear device on their back seat or trunk, and a larger one on a truck. Either way we're in deep trouble.

In addition, there is a possibility of a country detonating a nuke in American soil. North Korea has nukes. Iran will have nukes soon. Russia has nukes. India and Pakistan have nukes. However, the likely scenario is a terrorist attack. In that case there's no reason to be afraid of M.A.D.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"If for instance Al Queda detonates a nuclear device in New York, what could we do? America can't send their nukes to a certain country because Al Queda doesn't have one. They hide in the caves in the middle of no man's land. We could do nothing. So, the terrorists have no reason NOT to attack America using nukes."

Al Qaeda are, in case you haven't noticed, Muslims. Several members of the American religious right have proposed nuking Mecca in the event of a nuclear attack on US soil. The religious right is an ideological group with a significant amount of influence in the US military, there is a possibility for them to perform such a bombing in the chaos that would result from a nuclear attack. Al Qaeda would not want to be responsible for the bombing of their holy site, presumably, therefore, they do in fact have such a reason-- it may or may not be sufficient, though the difficulty of performing such an attack doesn't help make it look any more attractive.

"Actually, I'm very surpised that America has not been already attacked with nuclear power."
In other words, your theory predicts they already should have, and they haven't, therefore, your theory is missing some data. :)

"
I cannot present a mathematically calculated probability of a nuclear attack on the US soil."
You concede, then that the resolution is undemonstrable, since "Likely" is a reference to probability.

"
In my last post I presented logical evidence that it would be at least possible, or even easy to smuggle "suitcase bombs" or uranium/plutonium to the United States of America."
Easy you have not demonstrated. Possible you have, but possible and likely are different things, and it's the burden of the latter's demonstration that is resting on you.

"
Question: Okay, say someone smuggled plutonium into America unnoticed. How would they build a nuclear bomb?
Answer: It would be very easy."
Your oversimplifying sources notwithstanding, the best efforts of several significant countries have had difficulty with the task.
Debate Round No. 2
hauki20

Pro

Thank you for your response :)

~"Actually, I'm very surpised that America has not been already attacked with nuclear power."
In other words, your theory predicts they already should have, and they haven't, therefore, your theory is missing some data. :)~

Just because I'm surprised America hasn't been nuked doesn't mean I'm saying it won't be nuked in the next ten years. The latter is what I believe.

~Al Qaeda are, in case you haven't noticed, Muslims. Several members of the American religious right have proposed nuking Mecca in the event of a nuclear attack on US soil. The religious right is an ideological group with a significant amount of influence in the US military, there is a possibility for them to perform such a bombing in the chaos that would result from a nuclear attack. Al Qaeda would not want to be responsible for the bombing of their holy site, presumably, therefore, they do in fact have such a reason-- it may or may not be sufficient, though the difficulty of performing such an attack doesn't help make it look any more attractive.~

I deeply doubt that any intelligent being would nuke Mecca as a revenge.

1) It would initiate a third world war instantly, no questions asked. If Muslims were O-U-T-R-A-G-E-D by cartoons, think what this would do ;)
2) Since we now have a liberal majority in the Senate and we have a liberal president who is anti-war, I doubt that such action would be taken.

~You concede, then that the resolution is undemonstrable, since "Likely" is a reference to probability.~

Probability is not always based on numbers. The jury don't listen to numbers, but they analyze the evidence and decide whether or not the accused is guilty. In this case I'm basing my prediction on evidence, not mathematical calculations.

~Easy you have not demonstrated. Possible you have, but possible and likely are different things, and it's the burden of the latter's demonstration that is resting on you.~

Okay. Here we go (again.)

Question: But how could nuclear bombs get into USA?
Answer: There are many possible ways it could come here without anyone ever knowing. It could come in as sea cargo. Less than 5% of sea cargo coming into America are inspected.
It could also come in as air cargo. FedEx, UPS and UPSP are not inspected!
It could come in across borders. Only a few border guards have equipment to detect radioactive material and even fewer know how to use them!

So, if it would come in as sea cargo there would be a 95% probability that it would never even be inspected.
If it would come in here via FedEx, UPS or UPSP, it would never be inspected. That would make the probability of it NOT getting caught around 99-100%. In other words, there would only be around 1% chance that it would be found.
Across the borders: This one's a little harder. However, I deeply doubt that every single border guard scans every single backpack etc for radioactive material such as uranium or plutonium. Possibility is harder to count, but getting the "package" through would be quite easy.

~Your oversimplifying sources notwithstanding, the best efforts of several significant countries have had difficulty with the task.~

Go to www.google.com and type in (without the quote marks) "how to build a nuclear bomb frank barnaby". The only thing that the countries struggle in getting nukes is:

1) Enriching uranium
2) Getting enough of plutonium/uranium

If I'd have uranium and a decent set of instructions (which you can buy for around five bucks at www.amazon.com), I probably could build a nuclear bomb myself. All I need is plutonium/uranium and a set of instructions (for example "How to Build a Nuclear Bomb"). Or, as I said, when Iran is finished with its nukes, they could give a complete warhead over to Al Queda or someone else.

As I said in my previous message, if Al Queda doesn't have the acces to nuclear material, they could just wait for a year or two for Iran to finish its nukes. Then a warhead could be smuggled into the US and detonated in, New York for example. Casualties would be in millions. The worst impact would probably be the terror, not the detonation itself. And If Al Queda were to detonate it at Washington, D.C., they would kill most of the goverment. "Cut off the head of the snake and the body dies."
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
Just because I'm surprised America hasn't been nuked doesn't mean I'm saying it won't be nuked in the next ten years. The latter is what I believe."
You're missing the point. The same reasons that cause you to believe that it will be nuked in the next ten years would also have caused the same belief ten years ago, when it was clearly wrong. This calls into question the predictive power of your evidence.

"
I deeply doubt that any intelligent being would nuke Mecca as a revenge."
I never said it was intelligent, but you would be surprised what people would do.

"1) It would initiate a third world war instantly, no questions asked. If Muslims were O-U-T-R-A-G-E-D by cartoons, think what this would do ;)
2) Since we now have a liberal majority in the Senate and we have a liberal president who is anti-war, I doubt that such action would be taken."
Since when does the president have exclusive factual control over all nuclear buttons? Legal control maybe, but all it takes is ONE criminal fanatic somewhere around NORAD. As I've said, the religious right plays a prominent ideological role in the US military, and the religious right are quite susceptible to the impression that third world war = Apocalypse = Jesus comes down from heaven and lifts up the faithful. Al Qaeda didn't get where it is without learning what kind of people it hates.

"
Probability is not always based on numbers. The jury don't listen to numbers, but they analyze the evidence and decide whether or not the accused is guilty."
Ipse dixet. "Reasonable doubt" does not refer to a specific probability. Probability indeed solely has meaning in terms of numbers, the term "Likely" unless clarified when set forth means any number over 50% may refer to the chance of something occurred.

"In this case I'm basing my prediction on evidence, not mathematical calculations.
"
Which is why it doesn't predict the likelihood of anything.

And keep in mind it's still insufficient evidence, given the lack of precedent.

"
So, if it would come in as sea cargo there would be a 95% probability that it would never even be inspected."
Which tells us nothing outside the context of knowing whether it will come in at all.

"
Go to www.google.com and type in (without the quote marks) "how to build a nuclear bomb frank barnaby". The only thing that the countries struggle in getting nukes is:

1) Enriching uranium
2) Getting enough of plutonium/uranium

If I'd have uranium and a decent set of instructions (which you can buy for around five bucks at www.amazon.com), I probably could build a nuclear bomb myself."
I already googled it as you suggested. Enriching uranium is the hard part (for quality terrorists, for most people both are impossible), it requires expertise, quality expensive equipment, and time (http://www.fas.org... gives an idea how much time it takes if you input the numbers of centrifuges you think you can purchase while arousing NO attention whatsoever, which is probably not very much :).

"I probably could build a nuclear bomb myself."
We already know your propensity to lie about such things, given that you are 20 years old and claim to have 40 years of experience in the nuclear industry. You are hardly, therefore, a credible source.

By the way, the top rated review for Barnaby's book on amazon.com says specifically that it is not a manual for bomb producers.
http://www.amazon.com...

"Or, as I said, when Iran is finished with its nukes, they could give a complete warhead over to Al Queda or someone else."
Evidently you know nothing about Islam. Iran and Al Qaeda have some diplomacy, but they don't get along well-- Iran is a Shia theocracy, Al Qaeda is Sunni. They are unlikely to cooperate on something as important as a nuclear weapon, especially given that Iran would in fact then be subject to MAD doctrine, except of course that they have a low capacity for manufacturing such things, so it's more like "Their assured destruction for our one problem."
Debate Round No. 3
hauki20

Pro

We already know your propensity to lie about such things, given that you are 20 years old and claim to have 40 years of experience in the nuclear industry. You are hardly, therefore, a credible source.~

And when did I say I have spent 40 years on the nuclear industry? If I'd have uranium/plutonium and a decent set of instructions, I could easily build a nuclear weapon.

~Which is why it doesn't predict the likelihood of anything.

And keep in mind it's still insufficient evidence, given the lack of precedent.~

As I said, likelihood is NOT always based on numbers, but sometimes evidence.

~Since when does the president have exclusive factual control over all nuclear buttons? Legal control maybe, but all it takes is ONE criminal fanatic somewhere around NORAD. As I've said, the religious right plays a prominent ideological role in the US military, and the religious right are quite susceptible to the impression that third world war = Apocalypse = Jesus comes down from heaven and lifts up the faithful. Al Qaeda didn't get where it is without learning what kind of people it hates.~

Only the president has the codes needed to launch the nuclear arsenal. Without them, it is impossible for anyone to do anything with America's nukes.

~Ipse dixet. "Reasonable doubt" does not refer to a specific probability. Probability indeed solely has meaning in terms of numbers, the term "Likely" unless clarified when set forth means any number over 50% may refer to the chance of something occurred.~

In this case, "likely" is based on evidence. I'm sure that someone could calculate the probability, but I can't.

~By the way, the top rated review for Barnaby's book on amazon.com says specifically that it is not a manual for bomb producers.~

Actually, there are two top rated reviews. One says it is accurate and the other one says it's not. Since I've never read it, I suggest you flip a coin and place your bets.

Let me summarize my case.

Question: How easy would it be for terrorists get uranium/plutonium or a warhead into America?
Answer: Very easy. If they would ship it via air cargo using UPS, FedEx or UPSP, there would be almost a 100% chance it would get through unnoticed because the companies I mentioned are not inspected.
If they would ship it via sea cargo, there would be a 95% chance it would get through unnoticed because less than 5% of sea cargo coming into US is inspected.
It they would bring it from, let's say, Mexico or Canada, it would still be very easy to get it through unnoticed because only a few border guards have instruments to detect radiation and even fewer know how to use them.

Question: Okay, it is easy to get a warhead or uranium/plutonium into America. But where would they hide the uranium or plutonium?
Answer: Easy. To make a nuclear device that has power equal to those detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you only need:
1) Six 12-ounce cans filled with uranium
2) A coconut filled with plutonium
If the unlikely happened and by some twist of fate the packages would be inspected, no one would really suspect a six-pack of Coke or a coconut, right?

Question: I understand. It would be very easy to get the materials for building a nuclear bomb over to USA. But how would they build it?
Answer: They could go to www.amazon.com and buy a book called "How to build a nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction" for around 5 bucks. After a week or so they would have detailed instructions for building a nuke, and since they have the material...

Question: But how would they detonate it...?
Answer: They could rent a car and throw the nuclear device on the back seat or the trunk. Optionally they could just make a "suitcase bomb", walk downtown, press a button, and voila.

Conclusion: It is extremely easy to smuggle uranium/plutonium to USA without anyone noticing. It would also be very easy to build a nuclear device after smuggling uranium into America. It would also be extremely easy to detonate the bomb in the middle of a large city.

~Evidently you know nothing about Islam. Iran and Al Qaeda have some diplomacy, but they don't get along well-- Iran is a Shia theocracy, Al Qaeda is Sunni. They are unlikely to cooperate on something as important as a nuclear weapon, especially given that Iran would in fact then be subject to MAD doctrine, except of course that they have a low capacity for manufacturing such things, so it's more like "Their assured destruction for our one problem."~

Well, I'm sure there are hundreds of different terrorist organizations out there that are Shia. And how could the nuke ever be traced back to Iran? Terrorist organizations don't have a return address.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"And when did I say I have spent 40 years on the nuclear industry? "

"Some of it is gleaned from my over 40 years of work in the nuclear industry, including 7 years as Chairman of a Nuclear Technology Program at a major southern college, 2 years at the DOE PANTEX FACILITY, 5 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory and 2 Years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory."

First round.

"As I said, likelihood is NOT always based on numbers, but sometimes evidence."
Likelihood is by definition based on at least a rough number system. It has no meaning otherwise, i.e., the likelihood is not specific. Without numbers, the term "Likely" is simply arbitrary-- something with one tenth of a percent chance of occurring and something with one tenth of a percent chance of not occurring are equally "likely" under such a meaningless framework, so long as you've seen some minimal evidence that each is possible in theory.

"Only the president has the codes needed to launch the nuclear arsenal."

It is impossible for me to believe that you typed this with a straight face. By definition, someone else has to know the code or the order could not be known to be valid by the person receiving the order. Also, the US military is known to have a significant black budget, it would not be terribly difficult to fit a nuclear weapon operated under different protocols under that budget, or, indeed, somewhere else in the imperfect bureaucracy that necessarily accompanies a stockpile of thousands of warheads. Legal procedures have already been known to have been violated by the military in regards to the handling of nuclear weapons.

http://www.cbsnews.com....

"In this case, "likely" is based on evidence. I'm sure that someone could calculate the probability, but I can't."
Likely refers to math, therefore, no, it is not based on evidence. Possible is, but possible is not in the resolution.

"
Actually, there are two top rated reviews. One says it is accurate and the other one says it's not. Since I've never read it, I suggest you flip a coin and place your bets."

If the contents are unknown, the likelihood is even less calculable than before. :).

"
If the unlikely happened and by some twist of fate the packages would be inspected, no one would really suspect a six-pack of Coke or a coconut, right?"
Well, it would probably feel warm to the touch you know, plutonium anyway.

:They could go to www.amazon.com and buy a book called "How to build a nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction" for around 5 bucks. After a week or so they would have detailed instructions for building a nuke, and since they have the material...
Right, they definitely have gas cylinders for refining such things, and several years to wait around with them :)

:Well, I'm sure there are hundreds of different terrorist organizations out there that are Shia.
Shia terrorist organizations are primarily interested in regional conflicts (Knock Israel off the map and whatnot). They have no interest in investing their resources in a direct attack on US soil, that would be a waste of time for them.

:And how could the nuke ever be traced back to Iran?
The same way we trace guns manufactured in Iran back to Iran?

Different countries, whether they like it or not, have different ways of manufacturing weapons, especially since they don't share their methods with each other.

The most important point, again, is that probability (or likelihood) is a mathematical concept inapplicable to this situation.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
those words reference a certain numerical range.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
probabilty is normally based on numbers but does not require numbers all the time , this means that to use the words that its unlikley or impossible this will happen would require numbers to.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
That was an interesting debate to read....

Ok, RFD:
Conduct: Tie. Both were very courteous to each other, and weren't throwing insults at each other.

S/G: Tie. Both were pretty good at spelling....

ARG: CON. I thought that in the end, he was able to extend the fact that it has never happened based on the same evidence being provided, and there is no way to mathematically prove the probability of it happening. That was a crucial point. Also, the fact that the PRO used fake credentials didn't help. Also, the chances of enriching uranium in your backyard seems kind of slim.

SOURCES: CON. The credentials did it in for the PRO.
Posted by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
I copied the 4 security threats off www.ki4u.com/unthinkable.htm

I haven't worked in the nuclear industry.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Likely" means you need numbers, we don't have numbers, so we can't use the word "likely."

Thar ya go, one sentence a five year old can understand :).
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
tell me exactly what you said in one sentance put it so a five year old could understand it because obv you are not explaining it well enough or i am not understanding well enough.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"look the way you said it , you say that because of lack of evidence its unlikley to happen "

How many times do I have to tell you that's not what I said?

How many times are you going to keep repeating that without quoting something to that effect?

"Also what do you mean we cant put a mean on likley , you put a defintion on it ."
A definition that relies on a concept inapplicable to the situation... much like, say, a "Red sound" has no meaning (color is a property of sight, not sound).

"Also everybody knows what it means there is a scale impossible unlikley even likley certain its called probability scale if that helps."
You just conceded that the term is probabilistic-- i.e., it is a mathematical concept. With this you concede the game.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
look the way you said it , you say that because of lack of evidence its unlikley to happen . Also what do you mean we cant put a mean on likley , you put a defintion on it . Also everybody knows what it means there is a scale impossible unlikley even likley certain its called probability scale if that helps.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
that means , that you said we cant make assumpstions about nuclear attacks happening as there is no evidnece they will."
Which doesn't mean it won't happen, just that we have no knowledge to indicate it :)

"
There was no evidence my cat would get run over by a car , it had never happended to any of my prevoius cats , therefore i had no assumption to think that it would ever happen .however it did and snowball is now a pancake."
Which does not alter the nature of probability...

"

Yet there is always a first. You cannot claim that an attack is unlikley in the next ten years just because it has never happended."
I never said it was unlikely. I said the term "Likely" could have no meaning applied to it.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
"We have insufficient data to even begin to make a probability judgment about such a thing. The resolution is epistemically incoherent. "

that means , that you said we cant make assumpstions about nuclear attacks happening as there is no evidnece they will.

There was no evidence my cat would get run over by a car , it had never happended to any of my prevoius cats , therefore i had no assumption to think that it would ever happen .however it did and snowball is now a pancake.

Yet there is always a first. You cannot claim that an attack is unlikley in the next ten years just because it has never happended. I did not lie about what you said you have obv made a mistype or fail to understand what you said.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by EricGWilliams 8 years ago
EricGWilliams
hauki20Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
hauki20Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05