Non-Proliferation Lobby Analysts Seek to Corner India on CTBT

[CardSharp]

Who cares, I think I ll believe the words of Indian government and our Nuclear program director, than some random ranting nincompoop on the internet.

You say nincompoop I say people who worked for and still work for the US government+international bodies in the field of non-proliferation.

Its funny that a criticism coming from one Indian scientist becomes an absolute truth, but the rebuttal coming from many other Indian scientists just doesn't cut it.

Most of my sources are non-indian, but then people doubted the Americans scientists so I thought I'd try some collaborating testimonies from indian scientists. I would have avoided Indian sources otherwise.

You'd think after living in the western world, these people would have gotten used to the ways of free speech and democracy.

I'll ignore the condescending remark look forward to a rebuttal more substantial than a simpleminded disbelief. (I notice you seem reluctant to put forward an argument of your own, but please I encourage it)

I won't stoop to your level though.

Stoop don't stoop, you don't have to tell me about it, if you really were above it all.

 

[Vinod2070]

Stoop don't stoop, you don't have to tell me about it, if you really were above it all.

Not above letting you know.

 

[praveen]

lol... Your evidence for India's nuclear deterrent is that China hasn't started a nuclear war over a stretch of disputed land? I'd stick to slaving out computer code for whatever outsourcing company willing to have you.

Lol cardsharp you have just contradicted yourself about deterrence and add to it you have stooped too low ,not expected this from you

 

[Roybot]

I'll ignore the condescending remark look forward to a rebuttal more substantial than a simpleminded disbelief. (I notice you seem reluctant to put forward an argument of your own, but please I encourage it)

Nah mate am ok, unlike you I don't like to rant on topics that am not familiar with.

For me the statements from Indian government and authorities are good enough and carry more weight than whatever arguments you have to offer.

 

[praveen]

Not above letting you know.

Just see his response to my posts about deterrence and response to your post on deterrence

 

[justanobserver]

I thought this thread was about gloating on India being forced to join the CTBT ? Now it seems to be a thread dedicated to gloating on India's nuclear tests .

Next thing there'll be gloating on India's poverty toilets et al.

How about some unbiased generic gloating ?

edit:

I'd stick to slaving out computer code for whatever outsourcing company willing to have you.

 

[CardSharp]

Just see his response to my posts about deterrence and response to your post on deterrence

sure what was your point?

 

[Vinod2070]

Just see his response to my posts about deterrence and response to your post on deterrence

Yes, I did see that piece of mental gymnastics and the "cabaret" as you put it.

Well, when people can make comments about what Indian media says "everyday" without having a friggin clue, they can claim anything.

That is one advantage every village idiot now has with the American made public internet.

 

[CardSharp]

I'm ok with personal attacks, really I don't care but please at least try to argue with facts some proportion of the time.

You know, quote, refute, make counter claims etc etc.

 

[Roybot]

I'm ok with personal attacks, really I don't care but please at least try to argue with facts some proportion of the time.

You know, quote, refute, make counter claims etc etc.

Mate nuclear weapons are highly secretive programs. You think random people like us would have information about such things? There was a video posted couple of pages back which had the rebuttal, thats about it.

If tomorrow I or better yet the infamous Carlo Kopp start saying that J-20 is a shyteass fighter aircraft and not even at par with 4th generation American fighter planes, would you have any rebuttal, quote, counter claims? No you won't, cause its a top secret program and not much info is available to the lay man.

Appreciate your enthusiasm about Indian nukes and your eagerness to debate, but then there is something called common sense.

Here's what I mean.

Kakodkar and Chidambaram, the chief architect of Pokhran-II, were speaking on the controversy sparked off by a former DRDO scientist and a coordinator of the nuke tests, K Santhanam who has claimed that the thermonuclear device (H-bomb) test was a failure.

Describing the May 1998 thermonuclear test as "perfectly successful", Chidambaram said in the last 11 years several scientific peer reviews to explain the efficacy and yield were published.

"We scientists cannot go beyond that as proliferation sensitive information cannot be divulged," said Chidambaram, also a former AEC Chairman. Both Kakodkar and Chidambaram termed as "unnecessary", the row triggered by the remarks of Santhanam, a former DRDO scientist and a coordinator of the nuke tests and said "we are perplexed by the controversy."

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/27047/india-capable-building-nuke-deterrence.html

 

[praveen]

sure what was your point?

Iam seeing is you that you are contradicting yourselves

 

[nForce]

Non-Proliferation Lobby Analysts Seek to Corner India on CTBT

It didnt happen in 1974,when India tested its Nuclear bobm for first time.It didnt happen in 1998,when India tested its nukes again.I really dont see,how can it happen NOW????Someone can bully North Korea or Iran or Iraq,accuse them of having nukes and even attack them.But the same cannot be to India,or even Pakistan.

 

[CardSharp]

Ok like I said I don't mind the insults as long as there is at least some form of argument. There's basically two point you are making sans the insult and sarcasm.

Mate nuclear weapons are highly secretive programs. You think random people like us would have information about such things?

As I have explained elsewhere to Indian members, the appeal to the authority of secrecy (argument from authority) and the appeal to ignorance (Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance) are not valid forms of argument.

This kind of argument is one giant logical hole. Read: 'something is classified, but it proves my argument, though I can't tell you about it because it's a secret'

Oh yeah this is textbook example of logical fallacy. Arguing from a source only you have access to is the same as an argumentum ad verecundiam, where instead of using the logic or evidence you simply appeal to privileged information, that doesn't form a part of your argument. I could similarly prove the existence of God by saying I have privileged information/evidence of his existence but because of I was sworen to secrecy I can't reveal to you but then you're going to have to take my word for it. The whole way this was argued is incredibly childish.

If tomorrow if I or better yet the infamous Carlo Kopp start saying J-20 is a shyteass fighter aircraft and not even at par with 4th generation American fighter planes, would you have any rebuttal, quote, counter claims? No you won't, cause its a to secret program and not much info is available to the lay man.

Diversion from the topic but nice of you to imply that you also believe the J-20 being a good fighter. I plead ignorance on the J-20 beyond what people like siegecrossbow can parse out from the noise.

 

[CardSharp]

Iam seeing is you that you are contradicting yourselves

I don't think I am but if you can explain how I contradicted myself, I'd be glad to explain my reasoning.

 

[Roybot]

O
As I have explained elsewhere to Indian members, the appeal to the authority of secrecy (argument from authority) and the appeal to ignorance (Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance) are not valid forms of argument.

Diversion from the topic but nice of you to imply that you also believe the J-20 being a good fighter. I plead ignorance on the J-20 beyond what people like siegecrossbow can parse out from the noise.

Diversion? Eh all that mumbo jumbo about the technicalities of "logic" and "argument" and you have mistaken the good old technique of "giving an example" to make a point, as a diversion?

Either you are reading too much into this, or am just talking to a pseudo intellectual