Will Isis destroy Palmyra

[Onasander]

Plastic coated granite core.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33111424

 

Like I said, we have a lot of actual counterfeiters out there who already did this very cost analysis, and found it good enough to proceed.

 

Your outlook on a cost analysis per item is pointless, given you miss the point. The cost effective aspect is primarily aimed at disrupting ISIS' in ways we couldn't otherwise do, striking deep at its core, it's economic blood. Your belief that somehow the U.S. Government, which has collected counterfeit coins for well over a hundred years via the secret service, and mints it's own coins couldn't cost effectively produce fakes of coins because you possess some bizarre disbelief in the capacity of the government to do so is absurd. This would be like me saying the British lack the ability to build wooden ships, or the Arabs seminars, all because you lack a background in metallurgy or shipbuilding. Clearly they can. It's a poor use of your skepticism.

 

So.... say I said alloy/element X. How do you judge the cost effectiveness of quality X in scale against the systematic sabotage of a currency? Think about your statement, you have gaps in your logic here that need filed. You should ideally factor in costs of transport and quantity of coins dropped to achieve effect, and from this balance it against a Y quality, an alternative. We lack a alternative. Simply put, it's a aspect of war that we haven't consciously pursued since the end of the cold war in collapsing Soviet oil prices.

 

I know of five different techniques. I'm sure the gov knows of many, many more. Like I said,we would have to vary it (like the Borg), cause any given singular technique they can adapt to. We got a few millennia of numenistic data to fall back on to adapt. My biggest concern would be people drilling through, or cutting into eights.... but we can easily manufacture them to be exactly like this is advance, looking legit.

 

Your skepticism is off, you need to hammer this from directions where the theory is weak, not the self evidently right points. Yes, government mints can mint.... duh. Yes, people really do make fakes and make a profit.... duh. These are solid givens. Not up for serious debates. There are good points to hit and be skeptical about.

 

Don't argue against Mongols that they can't possibly ride and shoot at the same time. Little arguments that fall online with this analogy produce absurd effects, and I doubt you have a strong enough background in logic to pull such a absurdity into a productive build. I have intentionally argued absurd positions productively (yielded philosophical points otherwise unreachable) in debating nothing was real and was more than something. But I'm not seeing evidence of you pulling this off. Your stuck on a bad position here.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

Specific weight of gold: 19320 kg/m3

Specific weight of granite: 2700 kg/m3

This is not even 15% of it. Was this some kind of a joke?

You write too much while providing no facts to support your point.

I asked you a simple question: What substance would be heavier and cheaper than gold?

 

Instead of all your polemics, the correct answer would have been depleted uranium or tungsten. The first one is expensive to handle due to its radioactivity, the second one is not easy to turn into coins. So far it had only be used for producing counterfeit gold bars. Coins could easily be detected by the old procedure of biting on them. Gold coated tungsten coins would be too hard and still require a considerably expensive part of real gold.

 

Why do I actually have to provide the arguments against my own point myself? You are doing a lousy job as opponent in a debate, especially considering the amount of words you need. I would have a harder time disputing the topic with myself.

Edited June 16, 2015 by C. Fabius Lupus