How is that relevant to their relative safety?

They aren't safe. Period. The safety level of a nuclear missile is zero. You can't have one zero safer than another zero.

Do you feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall some times, Hades?

Do you feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall some times, Hades?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nah. It's the brick walls that sometimes feel like they're being banged against a Hades.

The safety level of this egg salad is 52.

Do you feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall some times, Hades?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is why I come to these forums. They are my metaphorical brick wall.

They aren't safe.  Period.  The safety level of a nuclear missile is zero.  You can't have one zero safer than another zero. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So you'd consider an unstable nuclear warhead, that could literally go off at any time it wants to, regardless of when or where (like in the Silo), with no arming codes and no arming triggers to be just as safe as one that was perfectly stable, with zero chance of detonation outside of its target, 187 highly uncrackable arming codes, with a flawless arming trigger to be equally safe?

Both are designed to explode. Both will cause the same amount of damahe (if they are the same yield) when they do. Just because one is controlled by chance while the other is controlled by a human does not mean one is safer than the other. In most cases I would rely more on chance than human sanity.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by Judge Hades

Actually I would say it does.

Both are designed to explode.  Both will cause the same amount of damahe (if they are the same yield) when they do.  Just because one is controlled by chance while the other is controlled by a human does not mean one is safer than the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So a gun without a safety (appropriately named) isn't any safer than a gun without one??

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by alanschu

Would "secure" and "better controlled" be better words?

Depends if the gun is loaded or not. A loaded gun with a safety is more dangerous than a gun without a safety unloaded.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by Judge Hades

They're both loaded.

 

Why you seriously thought I'd be changing two variables is beyond me.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by alanschu

You didn't clarify. Of course 2 loaded guns, one with a safety and one without, are both equally deadly. It doesn't matter to the weapon if the death was on purpose or an accident.

Yes. Because if one drops a gun and it goes off and kills someone, it's clearly just as safe.

Dead is dead, Alan. Accident or not.

Hahahahaha

Wow, the terrorists must love you.

I'm guessing brakes don't make cars safer either.

I'm guessing brakes don't make cars safer either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A car accident is a car accident, Alan.

Not when it is a teenager on a cellphone yapping away is behind the wheel.

Not when it is a teenager on a cellphone yapping away is behind the wheel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Strawman. Not what we're discussing.

 

Do brakes make a car safer?

Strawman? We are discussing weaponry then you go to a machine that has a utility function. The purpose of a car is not to kill, but to be used as transportation. The purpose of a gun is to kill. The purpose of a nuclear missile is to kill. If anyone is pulling a strawman it is you, Alan.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by Judge Hades

A car accident is a car accident, alanschu.

Brakes were an analogy to the current topic. Hence, still related to the topic.

 

Talking about teenagers when asked that question is a deflection. Unless you're trying to say that nukes are unsafe because of teenagers talking on the phone.