Ah another dumbass trying to use some mathmatical bullshit to predict when the world will end when it clearly tells you that only God knows... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnJ8cmaT3Ek&feature=related]Levethian said:Harold Camping [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping] might. Probably not though, not a reliable one anyway.
would that really be an epic win =PDrNobody18 said:I can see it now. I laugh at this statement now, but in 12 days the world really will end, and at that point my last thoughts will probably be giving you mad props for the epic win of that post.Wierdguy said:I imagine it will end in exactly 12 days from now.
Beyond rationality: no sane person is going to initiate a first nuclear strike. There's no benefit for them. However greedy or irrational you might think politicians are, what you're implying requires someone not just stupid or drunk on power, but literally insane (and bereft of checks and balances). You're saying they'd do it for oil, but who is going to think that initiating a nuclear conflict is going to win them oil? Unless they are to receive it in an afterlife.TestECull said:I admire your faith in the rationality of politicians
Well put good sir or madam, well putSaerain said:Beyond rationality: no sane person is going to initiate a first nuclear strike. There's no benefit for them. However greedy or irrational you might think politicians are, you can't be saying that the bulk of them are literally insane. You're saying they'd do it for oil, but who is going to think that initiating a nuclear conflict is going to win them oil?TestECull said:I admire your faith in the rationality of politicians
The practically guaranteed risk of initiating a first nuclear strike in a nuclear-armed world is mutually assured destruction, and the threat of that is the point of having these weapons.
If you want to say that a person might take power in a nuclear-armed country who might want to usher in a nuclear apocalypse, be it to hasten Judgment Day or acquire virgins, fine. It's possible, even if there are many factors making it unlikely. What I take issue with is the idea that an administration would decide that an apocalypse is to their material benefit.