Non-Proliferation Lobby Analysts Seek to Corner India on CTBT

[CardSharp]

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

I've already explained why you can't just say 'it's classified but I'm right'. I'm sorry if it seems intellectual but these are invalid forms of arguing that other people have already described, and I've helpfully included links explaining what they are (+ given my an explanation in my own words).

 

[Vinod2070]

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

Don't know why but I would lean towards the latter.

 

[CardSharp]

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

And you're right it was an example, not a diversion but it was an example of the same argument as the "it's a secret but I'm right' that I've addressed.

 

[praveen]

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

this is what you said to me in post 39

Mao did cabaret with USSR using a dozen dud nukes.Which would not even be able to hit the broadside of Moscow.When USSR wanted to invade lop nor and
nuke china
Original Post By praveen

Like I said, no is quite sure what constitutes a true deterrent in every situation.

Cardsharp you truly are a chemist.No wonder you want everything exactly
Original Post By praveen
Thank?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating the USSR didn't glass China

and seriously lols at you trying to deter me with a youtube video, saying I shouldn't miscalculate. (yes I have my finger on the big red button now...)
Original Post By CardSharp
As some have already mentioned, I don't need nukes to deter you.

I have not seen Chinese generals trying to occupy Arunachal Pradesh or even Tawang by force. That would mean the deterrence is working for those it is meant for.

Of course by sheer luck they got a willing client state they can use against India to the last citizen.

Vinod said here Deterrence is working as the proof of the pudding is in the eating

As some have already mentioned, I don't need nukes to deter you.

I have not seen Chinese generals trying to occupy Arunachal Pradesh or even Tawang by force. That would mean the deterrence is working for those it is meant for.

Of course by sheer luck they got a willing client state they can use against India to the last citizen.
Original Post By Vinod2070
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.

This was your response and contradiction.Can't see the difference there?

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ WHat do you exactly have except the claims by Mr. Santhanam?

Why should they be taken more seriously than the claims of the whole establishment and Mr. Kakodkar who have access to much more data?

 

[CardSharp]

Right I said,

Like I said, no(one) is quite sure what constitutes a true deterrent in every situation.

He said

I have not seen Chinese generals trying to occupy Arunachal Pradesh or even Tawang by force. That would mean the deterrence is working for those it is meant for.

I said,

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.

 

[Roybot]

I've already explained why you can't just say 'it's classified but I'm right'. I'm sorry if it seems intellectual but these are invalid forms of arguing that other people have already described, and I've helpfully included links explaining what they are (+ given my an explanation in my own words).

Did I give my view regarding this issue even once? No I did not. I said I trust what the Indian Government and the concerned authorities have to say about the issue, and thats about it.

You are just a show off mate, am sure all that stuff about logic and argument is a common knowledge for Chinese people.

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.

 

[CardSharp]

Nuclear destruction is not the only reason why nations don't go to war.

 

[praveen]

Right I said,




He said



I said,

Well We Indians can see deterrence working there.And I can see you doing a contradiction

 

[CardSharp]

Did I give my view regarding this issue even once? No I did not. I said I trust what the Indian Government and the concerned authorities have to say about the issue, and thats about it.

If you have no view why did you respond to this challenge?

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.

You are just a show off mate, am sure all that stuff about logic and argument is a common knowledge for Chinese people.

geez this stuff is all available on the web and takes like 2 mins to read and understand. I'm not sure how I am being an pseudo-intellectual.

 

[CardSharp]

Well We Indians can see deterrence working there.And I can see you doing a contradiction

Like I said, nuclear weapons are not the only reasons why nations do not automatically settle things with war. There is international law to consider, economic damage, public image, and loads of other consequences to war.

His argument was that China hasn't invaded AP because of India's nuclear deterrent. Well after the 62' war and the unilateral ceasefire there was a period of 10 years before India's nuclear program. According to his logic China should have invaded AP in that window of time, because the only thing stopping China from taking AP is India's nuclear deterrent. Ergo India's nuclear deterrent is effective.

India's nuclear arsenal doesn't have to be effective for there to be other reasons why China doesn't use military action to take AP.

 

[Vinod2070]

Man, you have tied yourself all over in knots.

What exactly are you trying to say here?

First you claimed an "I told you so" moment, then you tried to put the Indian nuclear deterrent in doubt based on mostly the comment of one guy.

When pointed out that others in the establishment don't share his views all you have is a list of logical fallacies.

You also managed to slip in the outsourcing industry while at it!

What is it you want? Why the mental gymnastics?

 

[Roybot]

If you have no view why did you respond to this challenge?

Challenge? Am sorry I didn't realise it was an invitation only "intellectual" duel. If you go back to page 3 you will see that I didn't quote anyone, I just said what I had to say, you on the other hand felt the need to reply to my post, even though it wasn't addressed to you. Who knows maybe I touched a nerve.

geez this stuff is all available on the web and takes like 2 mins to read and understand. I'm not sure how I am being an pseudo-intellectual.

The fact that you decided to explain me "Logical Fallacy" and "argument to authority", when my argument had nothing to do with it, shows that you just wanted to post that here for whatever reason. Anyways good to chat, further "discussion" will be futile.

 

[Vinod2070]

So I am not the only one who felt that those logical fallacy thingy was kinda forced in!

 

[praveen]

Like I said, nuclear weapons are not the only reasons why nations do not automatically settle things with war. There is international law to consider, economic damage, public image, and loads of other consequences to war.

His argument was that China hasn't invaded AP because of India's nuclear deterrent. Well after the 62' war and the unilateral ceasefire there was a period of 10 years before India's nuclear program. According to his logic China should have invaded AP in that window of time, because the only thing stopping China from taking AP is India's nuclear deterrent. Ergo India's nuclear deterrent is effective

.
The Chinese were in Mao's revolutions at that time a turbulent period with Mao let loosing his eccentricity on the populace.Add to that the Soviets were thinking of Glassing China because of the idiot red guards did near the Damnaski islands.The Chinese had an eye on the Red army.Thats why they weren't thinking invading India

India's nuclear arsenal doesn't have to be effective for there to be other reasons why China doesn't use military action to take AP.

In 1987-89 Deng wanted to teach India a small lesson due to operation chequer board by General Sundarjee.We didn't have proper deterrence in both the above instances



His argument is extremely valid it holds Cardsharp