390 réponses à ce sujet

[estebanus]

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Reapers could harvest all life forever. That means the threat is real. The technology exists in the universe to wipe organics out. How is that not the proof you claim isn't there? The fact that they haven't is just more proof that the Catalyst is not lying.

Wiping out organics on every world in every galaxy would be an impossible, futile and inefficient undertaking.

The technology exists to irradiate this planet several times over today. Does that mean we must be killed before we use it? Again, mere existence means nothing.

All organic life or some organic life. The Reapers deal in the whole galaxy, you're talking about one world's problems.

It's called scale. I'm giving an example. As far as we know at this moment in time, Earth is the only planet in the whole universe with life as we know it. We could blow it up tomorrow because of a border dispute.
The technology exists, therefore this is proof that it will happen. Your logic, not mine.

Proof that it will happen tomorrow or proof that someone will set off that bomb because... America already dropped a Nuke during war. I personally believe this world will end in fire, who knows when.

Nice. great.

And who would be the two sides fighting eachother? USA and China? USA and North Korea? Or possibly a reliving of the cold war, USA and Russia?

Think about how big the probabillity is of any of these outcomes to actually happen, considering that each one of those countries are totally dependent on each other.

The USA cannot live without China, and vice-versa.

The USA would nuke north Korea off the face of the Earth, considering how few nukes the koreans. 

There would literally be no reason for the USA and Russia to rekindle the flames of the cold war.

All I am saying is someone already for whatever reasons decided that a nuke was the answer. Could this happen again? Hell yes. Would it be worse now? Most likely. It doesn't mater who needs who, all it takes is the right person at the right time to make a very important decision.

Extremists and terrorists have a fetish for things like Nukes....why? Power, control and ultimately a sword to fight with.

That is completely idiotic. The reason why the USA launched fatman and little boy in the first place was because the japanese didn't have anything with the same firepower. They were essentially completely defenseless.

Nowadays, that can no longer be the case.

All world powers today have nuclear weapons, so if one side decides to attack the other for whatever reason, he can expect serious retaliation.

The nuke was only used twice, and both of those times were to prevent even more people from dying on both sides than did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It also secured the world from being engulfed into another world war.

I don't even think you realize what has to be done o simply launch a nuke. You have to know the launch codes, which are in possession of the country's leader, not in the missile bases themselves. The president has to authorize the launch of nuclear weapons by tipping in the launch codes.

So how in the hell would terrorists be able to launch any nukes, aside from themselves creating them, which would be completely illogical, considering that there'd be no way in hell for them to get the resources, funds, or technology to even start at creating even one nuke.

You're completely wrong and I would go into that with you but this is far from the original topic and I am already almost a page behind in responses. Not going to waste time off topic but a short answer for you is it might be easier to detonate a nuke or bio-weapon than you think and not just on the technical side but on the moral side too without regard to consequences or with regard.

Oh, I'm completely wrong because you said so?

It's not that easy to detonate nukes or bioweapns if you yourself know you're gonna die in the process.

It's not that easy to do stuff like that, let alone get a hold of such weapons.

hell, We don't even have a real bioweapon in today's society!

Would a person really fire off a nuke knowing he'll doom the entire human race to death? NO. HE WOULDN'T. Because he's not an idiot.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Actually the Quarians had turned the tide against the Geth on Rannoch, then the Reapers increased the intelligence of the Geth with the signal from that destroyer you killed. So if it weren't for the interference of the reapers the Quarians would have won back their homeworld on their own.

Plus the quarians would have committed genocide against the geth. Remember that the quarians were the aggressors. Shepard was even able to convince both to end their war. After that the geth offered help to rebuild the quarians' homeworld and to improve their immune system.

There are certain things you have to do. It seems like blowing up the heretic base makes that conflict resolution more difficult.-- Like Legion's make peace between Tali and Legion after the loyalty mission, didn't happen, I sided with Tali, and sent Legion was the tech expert. I didn't think a logic machine would have "emotional issues." Oh well. He took it in the flashlight at the door. I had a choice of Geth OR Quarians. Tali was a friend. So I sided with the Quarians on Rannoch.

I might make peace this time just for the extra EMS points even though I have to kill them at the end. We can thank Mac and Casey for this because they can't sell Synthesis without it. I'm not buying.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Hey, do we have to have quote pyramids?

[Razerath]

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Proof that it will happen tomorrow or proof that someone will set off that bomb because... America already dropped a Nuke during war.

That's not proof. That's probability. Again.
Probability does not justify anything. Or do you then follow that since America demonstrated the ability and willingness to use an atomic bomb, the entire continental United States must be carpet bombed for the greater good?

I personally believe this world will end in fire, who knows when.

Oh you're one of those. Should've guessed.

No, not that America should be carpet bombed but all NUKES should be destroyed along with any technology capable of wiping everyone out. This of course will likely never happen but that is my answer. And yes because it likely won't happen I really do feel like when the end of the world happens, it won't be when our Sun dies out. It will be when several maniacs press some buttons.

You think the decision of simply pressing a button is that simple. Do you really think that the decision to destroy the entire human race is something you do lightly?

The whole idea of nuclear deterrence is that one side won't launch its nuclear weapons in fear of retaliation, because in a nuclear war, there is no victor.

Also, if you've already learned the technology, you can't banish it from the world. If something has been discovered, it will never simply vanish.

Which is why I am sure, like to Krogan homeworld, we will nuke ourselves ( or the equivilant ) into oblivion.

How the hell can you even compare the krogan to us?

The krogan didn't hesitate one second to fire off their nukes, because theyall wanted to. Do you know how many times the world was at the brink of nuclear war?

Ever heard of the cuban missile crysis? Or maybe the Oslo incident?

The world was literally on the brink of nuclear annihilation, however they managed to reach a compromise at both times.

Maybe you should first understand the idea of nuclear deterrence before posting nonsensical crap like that..

If you know that by destroying an enemy coutry, you'll destroy your own one with it, would you do it?

No. You wouldn't. That's the entire idea of nuclear deterrence. No side would dare attacking the other knowing that they themselves would die doing so.

The Krogan were dispositioned to defend themselves when one attacked. They all weren't headbutting maniacs with Nukes at that point in their civilization. And I doubt they are the only ones who almost killed themselves as a species. There is probably a long list of species who had done that already and succeeded and also a long list of those who barely survived.

[RaenImrahl]

Massive quote pyramids are making this thread unreadable. Unreadable threads get locked. There is no need to quote people seven iterations in the past... that's why this is a forum and not an e-mail client.

[estebanus]

Razerath wrote...



The Krogan were dispositioned to defend themselves when one attacked. They all weren't headbutting maniacs with Nukes at that point in their civilization. And I doubt they are the only ones who almost killed themselves as a species. There is probably a long list of species who had done that already and succeeded and also a long list of those who barely survived.

You still fail to justify how you can compare two entirely different species with entirely different ways of thinking, one even being fictional, to each other.

Modifié par estebanus, 25 juin 2012 - 01:31 .

[sAxMoNkI]

Razerath wrote...

You're completely wrong and I would go into that with you but this is far from the original topic and I am already almost a page behind in responses. Not going to waste time off topic but a short answer for you is it might be easier to detonate a nuke or bio-weapon than you think and not just on the technical side but on the moral side too without regard to consequences or with regard.

Drawn that conclusion from your wealth of experience building and detonating nukes I take it? No? Then ssh, you have no idea how easy or hard it is morally or technically. In actual fact estebanus made excellent points and frankly I think you should look up 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) before you try calling someone wrong again when it would appear they know a damn sight more about the topic than you do.

[The Angry One]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Hey, do we have to have quote pyramids?

Indeed, I prefer quote stone henges.

*badum psssssssh*

Thank you I'll be here all week.

[JamieCOTC]

The Angry One wrote...

Shepard is not weak minded!
That's why Shepard surrendered to the leader of the Reapers without argument!

Wait..

*sigh*

Pretty much. 

[estebanus]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Razerath wrote...

You're completely wrong and I would go into that with you but this is far from the original topic and I am already almost a page behind in responses. Not going to waste time off topic but a short answer for you is it might be easier to detonate a nuke or bio-weapon than you think and not just on the technical side but on the moral side too without regard to consequences or with regard.

Drawn that conclusion from your wealth of experience building and detonating nukes I take it? No? Then ssh, you have no idea how easy or hard it is morally or technically. In actual fact estebanus made excellent points and frankly I think you should look up 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) before you try calling someone wrong again when it would appear they know a damn sight more about the topic than you do.

Well, my father's a historian and a formaer soldier who served in the cold war, so I guess I have a larger base knowledge about nuclear deterrence than most people, but you're right. He fails to adress any questions logically, and doesn't show any of knowledge about the facts presented.

[Razerath]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Razerath wrote...

So if it was you in Shepards place what would you do in that instance? Anyone can answer this. I am sure, unless you're just joking, you will make one of the choices because the fourth choice is to just watch the fleets fall and then bleed out while the cycle continues.

I must admit I'd shoot the tubes, but I would argue with the Catalyst, try to find another way to end this.

Like what? You'd only get another suggestion from him which is why you claim to not make the first 3 choices.

How about dreadnought strike the damn Presidium tower? Kill the Catalyst. Cut off the head of the snake.
There's an option right there.

Like you could know that would do anything, if the Catalyst would even be affected or that it's truly there at all in primary form. Also that the other Reapers all self-aware wouldn't still continue and one would take the lead.

[estebanus]

The Angry One wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Hey, do we have to have quote pyramids?

Indeed, I prefer quote stone henges.

*badum psssssssh*

Thank you I'll be here all week.

Oh, joy...

Joking, of course.

Modifié par estebanus, 25 juin 2012 - 01:34 .

[Razerath]

Sajuro wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Razerath wrote...

So if it was you in Shepards place what would you do in that instance? Anyone can answer this. I am sure, unless you're just joking, you will make one of the choices because the fourth choice is to just watch the fleets fall and then bleed out while the cycle continues.

I must admit I'd shoot the tubes, but I would argue with the Catalyst, try to find another way to end this.

Like what? You'd only get another suggestion from him which is why you claim to not make the first 3 choices.

Figure out how the crucible would let me control the Reapers, if it is a feedback system, blow up the crucible to shock all of the Reapers like Sov and finish them like that.

Kind of hard to figure out when you're getting obliterated. Don't you think?

[Razerath]

RaenImrahl wrote...

Massive quote pyramids are making this thread unreadable. Unreadable threads get locked. There is no need to quote people seven iterations in the past... that's why this is a forum and not an e-mail client.

Sorry, I am only trying to keep up with everyone's responses. I'll stop the pyramids of course..

[Razerath]

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...



The Krogan were dispositioned to defend themselves when one attacked. They all weren't headbutting maniacs with Nukes at that point in their civilization. And I doubt they are the only ones who almost killed themselves as a species. There is probably a long list of species who had done that already and succeeded and also a long list of those who barely survived.

You still fail to justify how you can compare two entirely different species with entirely different ways of thinking, one even being fictional, to each other.

Well they both have Nukes and both have used them. That's a major similarity.

[Sajuro]

Razerath wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Razerath wrote...

So if it was you in Shepards place what would you do in that instance? Anyone can answer this. I am sure, unless you're just joking, you will make one of the choices because the fourth choice is to just watch the fleets fall and then bleed out while the cycle continues.

I must admit I'd shoot the tubes, but I would argue with the Catalyst, try to find another way to end this.

Like what? You'd only get another suggestion from him which is why you claim to not make the first 3 choices.

Figure out how the crucible would let me control the Reapers, if it is a feedback system, blow up the crucible to shock all of the Reapers like Sov and finish them like that.

Kind of hard to figure out when you're getting obliterated. Don't you think?

Nothing good comes easy you could always ask the Catalyst, or just blow up the Crucible and see what happens

[sAxMoNkI]

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

My scenario is the geth will always continue the pattern I have just stated. My scenario is based off of observed data, yours is based on possibilities and assumptions. Mine is therefore more logical, end of.

OK lol yours is more logical. I'll just concede to you because it's obvious that this argument with you is about you proving that you're right. That is not in line with the original topic ideas. I could simply argue that I am gathering my "data" based on things like... the Reapers existence. The rogue AI in ME1, the fact that Geth will fight back. Both of us are basing our opinions off assumptions. I see the Reapers say that in the past Synthetics will try and wipe out organics. You see that the Geth haven't, yet.

Doesn't matter. You win. I concede.

This argument is about trying to show you how just because something *could* happen does not justify you acting upon it as if it *will* happen.

What I just did was show you how ridiculous it is to say "well this one thing exists therefore it must be true" as you are doing by saying the reapers existing is proof that synthetics will always wipe out organics. The inherent problem then is that they are solving a problem that only exists because they do. They engineer the problem in which they are the twisted solution.

Modifié par sAxMoNkI, 25 juin 2012 - 01:41 .

[Razerath]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Drawn that conclusion from your wealth of experience building and detonating nukes I take it? No? Then ssh, you have no idea how easy or hard it is morally or technically. In actual fact estebanus made excellent points and frankly I think you should look up 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) before you try calling someone wrong again when it would appear they know a damn sight more about the topic than you do.

If you think that everyone in the future, almost ready to launch, is going to think about what happens to us before they do it you're wrong. Sure it's one helluva deterent for everyone but once that first one flies... the rest will probably follow because if you don't take action, you might not get another chance to do so.

They fire nuke.
We fire nuke hoping that they are destroyed so no more nukes get fired.
Everyone tries to self preserve.

[Razerath]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

My scenario is the geth will always continue the pattern I have just stated. My scenario is based off of observed data, yours is based on possibilities and assumptions. Mine is therefore more logical, end of.

OK lol yours is more logical. I'll just concede to you because it's obvious that this argument with you is about you proving that you're right. That is not in line with the original topic ideas. I could simply argue that I am gathering my "data" based on things like... the Reapers existence. The rogue AI in ME1, the fact that Geth will fight back. Both of us are basing our opinions off assumptions. I see the Reapers say that in the past Synthetics will try and wipe out organics. You see that the Geth haven't, yet.

Doesn't matter. You win. I concede.

This argument is about trying to show you how just because something *could* happen does not justify you act as if it *will* happen.

What I just did was show you how ridiculous it is to say "well this one thing exists therefore it must be true" as you are doing by saying the reapers existing is proof that synthetics will always wipe out organics. The inherent problem then is that they are solving a problem that only exists because they do. They engineer the problem in which they are the twisted solution.

If a nuke exsists, as an example, it's logical to conclude that it will be used sometime. The Reapers exists, it's logical to conclude that at some point ( not the Reapers ) something quite like them will destroy all organic life, forever. It's not that big of a leap especially if you think, like me, that the Catalyst is telling the complete truth.

[estebanus]

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...



The Krogan were dispositioned to defend themselves when one attacked. They all weren't headbutting maniacs with Nukes at that point in their civilization. And I doubt they are the only ones who almost killed themselves as a species. There is probably a long list of species who had done that already and succeeded and also a long list of those who barely survived.

You still fail to justify how you can compare two entirely different species with entirely different ways of thinking, one even being fictional, to each other.

Well they both have Nukes and both have used them. That's a major similarity.

Derp.

The krogan destroyed their own planet the moment they learned how to split the atom. Humanity didn't.

That similarity isn't even small. It's microscopic.

Krogan grew up in a different environment than humans did. They were hunters, while we were farmers. They mostly had to hunt and kill their own pray, constantly being in fear of being eaten, while we sowed crops.

Krogan are naturally more violent than humans, so it makes sense they would care less about the idea of MAD, than rather experiencing the short-term goal.

Again, I ask you this: Did we nuke the world into oblivion right after we split the atom? Huh? Did we?

[sAxMoNkI]

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Drawn that conclusion from your wealth of experience building and detonating nukes I take it? No? Then ssh, you have no idea how easy or hard it is morally or technically. In actual fact estebanus made excellent points and frankly I think you should look up 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) before you try calling someone wrong again when it would appear they know a damn sight more about the topic than you do.

If you think that everyone in the future, almost ready to launch, is going to think about what happens to us before they do it you're wrong. Sure it's one helluva deterent for everyone but once that first one flies... the rest will probably follow because if you don't take action, you might not get another chance to do so.

They fire nuke.
We fire nuke hoping that they are destroyed so no more nukes get fired.
Everyone tries to self preserve.

*No-one is stupid enough to fire the first nuke because of aforementioned MAD.*

^Ta da, hence why 68 years after the first nukes were created we haven't all been bombed back to the stone age.

[estebanus]

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Drawn that conclusion from your wealth of experience building and detonating nukes I take it? No? Then ssh, you have no idea how easy or hard it is morally or technically. In actual fact estebanus made excellent points and frankly I think you should look up 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) before you try calling someone wrong again when it would appear they know a damn sight more about the topic than you do.

If you think that everyone in the future, almost ready to launch, is going to think about what happens to us before they do it you're wrong. Sure it's one helluva deterent for everyone but once that first one flies... the rest will probably follow because if you don't take action, you might not get another chance to do so.

They fire nuke.
We fire nuke hoping that they are destroyed so no more nukes get fired.
Everyone tries to self preserve.

But why would that other side fire that nuke, knowing they'd doom the entire human race? Why?

[Razerath]

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...



The Krogan were dispositioned to defend themselves when one attacked. They all weren't headbutting maniacs with Nukes at that point in their civilization. And I doubt they are the only ones who almost killed themselves as a species. There is probably a long list of species who had done that already and succeeded and also a long list of those who barely survived.

You still fail to justify how you can compare two entirely different species with entirely different ways of thinking, one even being fictional, to each other.

Well they both have Nukes and both have used them. That's a major similarity.

Derp.

The krogan destroyed their own planet the moment they learned how to split the atom. Humanity didn't.

That similarity isn't even small. It's microscopic.

Krogan grew up in a different environment than humans did. They were hunters, while we were farmers. They mostly had to hunt and kill their own pray, constantly being in fear of being eaten, while we sowed crops.

Krogan are naturally more violent than humans, so it makes sense they would care less about the idea of MAD, than rather experiencing the short-term goal.

Again, I ask you this: Did we nuke the world into oblivion right after we split the atom? Huh? Did we?

No we didn't. I'm done replying to you though, you're really snide and taking this waaay to seriously for a discussion about the endings and IT.

Why are you so mad? You can't prove I am wrong or stupid without saying I am wrong or stupd. No one here can, none of you have yet.

Most of you are arguing semantics and ways to see opinions.

This is all my opinion based off Mass Effect and about Mass Effect. Get on board or get out, please.

[estebanus]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Drawn that conclusion from your wealth of experience building and detonating nukes I take it? No? Then ssh, you have no idea how easy or hard it is morally or technically. In actual fact estebanus made excellent points and frankly I think you should look up 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) before you try calling someone wrong again when it would appear they know a damn sight more about the topic than you do.

If you think that everyone in the future, almost ready to launch, is going to think about what happens to us before they do it you're wrong. Sure it's one helluva deterent for everyone but once that first one flies... the rest will probably follow because if you don't take action, you might not get another chance to do so.

They fire nuke.
We fire nuke hoping that they are destroyed so no more nukes get fired.
Everyone tries to self preserve.

*No-one is stupid enough to fire the first nuke because of aforementioned MAD.*

^Ta da, hence why 68 years after the first nukes were created we haven't all been bombed back to the stone age.

Nukes for peace:P


You see this bomb? LOVE IT! THANK IT FOR KEEPING THE PEACE!

[Razerath]

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Drawn that conclusion from your wealth of experience building and detonating nukes I take it? No? Then ssh, you have no idea how easy or hard it is morally or technically. In actual fact estebanus made excellent points and frankly I think you should look up 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) before you try calling someone wrong again when it would appear they know a damn sight more about the topic than you do.

If you think that everyone in the future, almost ready to launch, is going to think about what happens to us before they do it you're wrong. Sure it's one helluva deterent for everyone but once that first one flies... the rest will probably follow because if you don't take action, you might not get another chance to do so.

They fire nuke.
We fire nuke hoping that they are destroyed so no more nukes get fired.
Everyone tries to self preserve.

But why would that other side fire that nuke, knowing they'd doom the entire human race? Why?

Who said everyone would be doomed if two or even 8 countries went at it? Humans could survive that easily... just probably not the ones in large major cities.