rhys 0 #51 November 20, 2005 ***In a previous post, you wrote "the chinese would storm over the U.S. in a couple of weeks", which completely contradicts your comment above. If you're going to put forth absurd assertions, at least stay consistent. Quote so you think it is not possible to storm over an attacker? take gallipoli for example. untill us kiwi/aussies dug the hole/s through to the german/turks bunker and blew the fuck out of them we were getting slaughtered because a stupid ass drunk ass POM, was sending the boys over willy nilly. we were ATTACKING and thousands of good soldiers died because of stupid decisions."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #52 November 20, 2005 Quote------------------------------------------------------------------------In Reply To ------------------------------------------------------------------------ you didn't reply to the fact that the u.s. military is 40% short on its recruits? 40% is alot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40% is also an incorrect figure. All branches except for Active Duty Army are exceeding goals, and even then, the Army is exceeding re-enlistment goals for active duty soldiers. In October alone, all branches exceeded goals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I got this information from the U.S. army website yesterday. It said it was across the board. but they are probably lying again. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #53 November 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteowain glyndwr. What language is that? My guess is Celtic (?) It's the name of an Orc chieftain. I thought the Orc chieftain's name was Orson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #54 November 20, 2005 QuoteLike most others, I think we'd go to war with China first because we're ideologically opposed to their system of government. This is where our thinking really differs. I don't think wars are fought over ideology. I think they are fought over very primal things such as greed or malice or survival. The US has a long history of being chummy with some real scumbags when it was profitable or advantageous in some other way. It always seems to come back to haunt us, though. Maybe Nixon was being some sort of real visionary when he moved to "improve" relations between the US and China. I still don't see it, but time will tell. Meanwhile, China is a source of extremely cheap labor and products for the US, so the Chinese government would have to do something extremely evil to the US to screw up relations. They could conduct mass slaughter of babies and puppies on CNN and (IMO), while the US government would public condemn it, they wouldn't do anything that would negatively impact US investment in China. As far as I can tell, though, the US really doesn't have all that much investment in Japan. Japan has trade barriers that block foreign investment in their country. The US could blow Japan off the map and, in economic terms, I suspect it would have less impact than doing the same to China. I think the bottom line is that in any business relationship, and relationships between countries ARE business relationships in my view, the successful ones are those in which both countries have much to lose if the relationship goes south. In the case of China, I suspect the critical mass has been reached that in a war, both sides would suffer well beyond the point where either would consider the losses to be acceptable. In the case of Japan, I'm not so sure. In any case, all of this is conjecture on my part. My original posting was a prediction and much more of a commentary on my views toward the US government than it was my views on Japan. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #55 November 20, 2005 Here's a report on the matter, it doesn't have final FY2005 data, but it provides YTD info as of Oct-May (8 out of 12 months of the FY). It's a small PDF file, 16 pages. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32965.pdf I was incorrect on one thing, the Army did meet its goals for FY2004, it was lagging for FY2005 along with the Air National Guard and Army National Guard.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #56 November 20, 2005 Quoteso you think it is not possible to storm over an attacker? Well, I know Risk doesn't have any planes, but the US has a few. How are millions of poorly armed and trained Chinese militia going to "swarm over" all those pesky aircraft? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #57 November 20, 2005 First of all, skydvr hit the nail on the head. But just to humor you, no, we would not just start by throwing 200,000 soldiers on the beach and let them have at it. If we actually attacked China, which will not happen, but if we did, there'd be such a naval and aerial bombardment beforehand that there wouldn't be this massive Chinese Army ready to meet our Marines at the beach. China would be fucked from the air and sea long before the groundpounders would set foot on Chinese shores. You fuckin right I'm loud! This job ain't for pussies! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #58 November 20, 2005 QuoteFirst of all, skydvr hit the nail on the head. But just to humor you, no, we would not just start by throwing 200,000 soldiers on the beach and let them have at it. If we actually attacked China, which will not happen, but if we did, there'd be such a naval and aerial bombardment beforehand that there wouldn't be this massive Chinese Army ready to meet our Marines at the beach. China would be fucked from the air and sea long before the groundpounders would set foot on Chinese shores. You fuckin right I'm loud! This job ain't for pussies! Don't forget the XVIII Airborne Corps...they'd insist on some left overs for them to jump and air assault into. I mean, if I have to carry 1,000 rounds of SAW ammo, I better have something to shoot at to lighten the load. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #59 November 20, 2005 "Business is War". The object of war is to take over the assets of a country. Japan has taken over the electronics industry from the US. Where are the stereos and tvs manufactured? Japan would have eliminated the car industry except for the trade quotas. To get around that, they built factories in the US. Outboard motors too. For 7-8 years, Japan had superior quality outboards with oil injection. US manufacturers didn't install it (and sucked) until the Japanese product was sold in the US. Then, Koreans started building cars for the US market. Soon, the Chinese will enter the US car market and put the final nail in the US car manufacturers coffin. According to the CIO of Verizon, the cost of using Indian software developers is $50K less per person. As the industrial base fades, war will only be used against countries with natural resources - oil and food primarily. I would be nervous if I was in a South American countries with food resources, not Japan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #60 November 20, 2005 Ha, alright Gawain...I'll leave you a few buildings to lay some cover fire into...sound good? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #61 November 21, 2005 QuoteWell, you nuked them last time cos you were afraid of invading them. What's changed? t Not much. I probably owe my existence to the atom bomb, as my dad was drafted in August, 1945. He was on his way to his pre-induction physical on V-J Day in NYC when all the sirens and church bells started going off to signal that the Japs had thrown in the towel. I don't want, or expect, to see another war with Japan. But the Japs have this fucked up history of WWII that basically says they were minding their own business until the US suddenly nuked them for no apparent reason and it's a bunch of fucking bullshit. They invaded China back as early as 1936 and used the Chinese people and British POWs for bayonet practice and unspeakable medical experiments. They conscripted and abused thousands of Korean women to be whores for their armies all over Asia. Then they really fucked up and attacked Pearl Harbor. I knew a gentleman twenty years ago who was taken prisoner on Guam at the beginning of WWII. He and his brothers were US navy sailors. They were paraded through the streets of Tokyo and spent the rest of the war working as slave laborers inJapanese iron mines. Miraculously, he and his brothers all survived their captivity, but he weighed 84 lbs when he was liberated. For the rest of his life he never gave a fuck about Japanese people and I can't say as I blame him. So the US was already sick and tired from having fought Germany to their surrender. All the forecasts for an invasion of Japan were that the war would go on until 1952 with over a million American casualties. We just didn't give a fuck anymore and we wasted the cocksuckers. they asked for it and they richly deserved it. Thanks again for inviting an American to explain our proud history to a South African. Maybe you can explain Apartheid one of these days, I'm all fucking ears..... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #62 November 21, 2005 Apartheid sucked. It was, in my book, a crime against humanity that all people should be educated about. Unfortunately, that's not even happening here. Young voters, who were perhaps 7 years old when the first free elections were held here in 1994, don't understand the cost some of their elders paid to secure that democracy. I'm well aware of Japan's history both pre WW2 and during the conflict, and agree their marketing of their country has done a good job of sweeping a mountain of attrocities under the rug. My Grandfather was a casualty of that conflict, but fell in a different arena. Having said that, the entire human race has spent the past 20 000 years in conflict, and without exception has raped, pillaged, burned, murdered, subjugated and tortured their way across history. The US, however, remains the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in conflict. That's history. It's very difficult to justify in today's world regardless of how nessesary it may have been then, and unfortunately has cost the US the moral high ground. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #63 November 21, 2005 QuoteThe US, however, remains the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in conflict. That's history. It's very difficult to justify in today's world regardless of how nessesary it may have been then, and unfortunately has cost the US the moral high ground. t Are you serious?!!! Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #64 November 21, 2005 Yes. The US has a record of going about spanking small nations, none of which are capable of invading. Sooner or later, one of them will get a nuke to you, and use it on a "mixed" target. What are you going to say? "Unfair!" Well? You started this thread by saying the US should invade Japan for having lent the US money. What you're proposing isn't exactly moral, is it? Why do you think you should have the moral high ground? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #65 November 21, 2005 edited to remove a few inappropriate smartass remarks. My apologies to Tonto if you saw them before the edit.--Walt QuoteYes. The US has a record of going about spanking small nations, none of which are capable of invading. Sooner or later, one of them will get a nuke to you, and use it on a "mixed" target. What are you going to say? "Unfair!" I'm thinking the correct resonse would be to say "Fuck you", and blow 'em off the map. Quote Well? You started this thread by saying the US should invade Japan for having lent the US money. What you're proposing isn't exactly moral, is it? Why do you think you should have the moral high ground? t Read it again. I NEVER said that the US should invade Japan. It was (and still is) my prediction for the next big US war based on my cynical attitude toward the scumballs that run this country. Personally, I don't give a fuck about which country has the "moral high ground". Can you name one country that is run by truly caring, moral people? Chances are that you cannot because those are not the kind of people who run countries. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #66 November 21, 2005 You say "I'm serious" and ask "Are you serious?" a lot. When someone says "I'm serious." I have no reason to beleive they're not. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #67 November 21, 2005 QuoteYou say "I'm serious" and ask "Are you serious?" a lot. When someone says "I'm serious." I have no reason to beleive they're not. t I made the original posting after trying to put myself in the mindset that I think some of the people running this country have. I am indeed serious that I think they are that bad. Does that mean I approve of their twisted thinking? No. I don't come anywhere near thinking that kind of thinking is Ok, but I do think it exists. I asked if you were serious because that one paragraph from your posting is kind of hard for me to digest: The US, however, remains the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in conflict. That's history. It's very difficult to justify in today's world regardless of how nessesary it may have been then, and unfortunately has cost the US the moral high ground. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do at the time and I don't see how that could possibly be considered as a reason for the US not having the moral high ground. There are far more things the US has done in recent times that could warrant that attitude, but nuking Japan? I just don't see it. I think the most heinous thing the US government has done is the very deep lack of honesty with its citizens. If this was truly a country run by the will of the people, recent history would have been really different. Regardless, anyone who thinks their country has some sort of moral high ground needs to really take a close look at the people who run their country. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #68 November 21, 2005 I'm sorry you don't see the irony where a country that has, and has used the ultimate WMD is running about spanking others who may want what it has. There is no possible "responsible" way to use nukes. Quoteanyone who thinks their country has some sort of moral high ground needs to really take a close look at the people who run their country. Here we agree completely. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #69 November 21, 2005 QuoteI'm sorry you don't see the irony where a country that has, and has used the ultimate WMD is running about spanking others who may want what it has. There is no possible "responsible" way to use nukes. Quoteanyone who thinks their country has some sort of moral high ground needs to really take a close look at the people who run their country. Here we agree completely. t I do see the irony of it. Strange as it sounds, I think I trust the US government more than anyone else when it comes to nukes. I honestly think that NOBODY in the US truly wants to use nukes against anyone. I seriously doubt that the same can be said about governments of religious states. It would be a great thing if the world could go back to a time when nobody had nukes. That ain't gonna happen, though, and I think that keeping them out of the hands of people who likely would use them is a responsible thing to do. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #70 November 21, 2005 QuoteI do see the irony of it. Good. QuoteI honestly think that NOBODY in the US truly wants to use nukes against anyone. Well... the number of "Glass fucking parking lot" posts in this forum would make me question that thought... QuoteI seriously doubt that the same can be said about governments of religious states. Well... God speaks to President Bush, or President Bush hears the words of God, or has said that there are times he feels he's acting on God's behalf. If God said (or President Bush thought he said..) "Nuke em!" would he listen? I don't think ANY religion mixes well with nukes.. QuoteIt would be a great thing if the world could go back to a time when nobody had nukes. That ain't gonna happen, though, and I think that keeping them out of the hands of people who likely would use them is a responsible thing to do. Again we agree, but technology has a way of filtering down to the masses. If industrialists will pollute our planet for capital gain, then someone, somewhere will sell something to someone that should not be sold. The fact that there is terrorism at all is an indication that "intelligence" is always behind the curve. If they can build any bomb, and deliver it, it's only a matter of time before that bomb is a nuke. You can stop 100, or 1000. It only takes one to be a loser. The best defense, of course, is not to be a target in the 1st place. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #71 November 21, 2005 Even if Bush went completely insane and literally ordered the firing of nukes on a country based on "God's will," it wouldn't happen. Because of our system, it's impossible to launch nukes w/o several levels of consent, no matter what the guy in the WH thinks. So yeah, nukes are leaps and bounds safer in the US then in almost every other country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,067 #72 November 21, 2005 >Because of our system, it's impossible to launch nukes w/o >several levels of consent, no matter what the guy in the WH thinks. Not hard at all. 1. Get intelligence on some other country "proving" they are about to launch biological weapons at us. 2. Convince congress that we must act swiftly to prevent a catastrophe of biblical proportions. 3. Launch nukes. 4. Afterwards say that there really were biological weapons; the nuclear attack destroyed them all without a trace. We justified using nuclear weapons against civilians not to ensure victory (we knew we would win World War II) but to speed up victory a bit and save the US military the effort of going into Japan. That is our standard for use of nuclear weapons - making a war effort easier. Starting from that, there is no question in my mind that we'd launch a first strike to protect ourselves from a perceived (even contrived) threat. We are certainly willing to wage a major war over a perceived (and false) threat. Will our leaders in the future have the wisdom not to launch such attacks? I hope so. But it will take a lot more wisdom than we've been showing over the last few years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 November 21, 2005 QuoteI'm sorry you don't see the irony where a country that has, and has used the ultimate WMD is running about spanking others who may want what it has. There is no possible "responsible" way to use nukes. There's no irony there - it makes perfect sense. Members of the nuclear family have a huge advantage over non members, and its in their interests to keep it. Elementary school game theory. We've had the discussion on the properness of 1945 - not seeing your cause. Would it have been any more moral to suffucate the population of Hiroshima as was done in Tokyo? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #74 November 22, 2005 Your nice little 3 step process is incredibly naive. It takes more than a presidential order and congressional approval. There's a chain of numerous individuals who must confirm intel, confirm this is the course of action required, etc. It's not a "snap of the finger" system and the President gets his way. Plus nukes are useless against terrorism, which everyone, including Bush, realizes. If there was intel of an imminent bio attack...well it'd be from some terrorist org and therefore there'd be no city, state, etc. to target and launch on. Those days are over for the time being. QuoteThat is our standard for use of nuclear weapons - making a war effort easier Incredibly wrong. Yes we nuked Japan to end the war, but it was done to save an estimated million American soldiers from a country who'd already lost countless numbers fighting since 1941 in Europe and the Pacific. Not to mention the Japanese brought it completey on themselves and quite frankly, deserved it. Bottom line in war - Us or them. I choose them to die. I don't feel one bit bad about us using nukes against them, better them then my grandpa or any other Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #75 November 22, 2005 QuotePlus nukes are useless against terrorism, which everyone, including Bush, realizes. Against terrorism? Consider for a moment other reasons for employ, despite the banner under which it might be sold. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rhys 0 #52 November 20, 2005 Quote------------------------------------------------------------------------In Reply To ------------------------------------------------------------------------ you didn't reply to the fact that the u.s. military is 40% short on its recruits? 40% is alot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40% is also an incorrect figure. All branches except for Active Duty Army are exceeding goals, and even then, the Army is exceeding re-enlistment goals for active duty soldiers. In October alone, all branches exceeded goals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I got this information from the U.S. army website yesterday. It said it was across the board. but they are probably lying again. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #53 November 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteowain glyndwr. What language is that? My guess is Celtic (?) It's the name of an Orc chieftain. I thought the Orc chieftain's name was Orson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #54 November 20, 2005 QuoteLike most others, I think we'd go to war with China first because we're ideologically opposed to their system of government. This is where our thinking really differs. I don't think wars are fought over ideology. I think they are fought over very primal things such as greed or malice or survival. The US has a long history of being chummy with some real scumbags when it was profitable or advantageous in some other way. It always seems to come back to haunt us, though. Maybe Nixon was being some sort of real visionary when he moved to "improve" relations between the US and China. I still don't see it, but time will tell. Meanwhile, China is a source of extremely cheap labor and products for the US, so the Chinese government would have to do something extremely evil to the US to screw up relations. They could conduct mass slaughter of babies and puppies on CNN and (IMO), while the US government would public condemn it, they wouldn't do anything that would negatively impact US investment in China. As far as I can tell, though, the US really doesn't have all that much investment in Japan. Japan has trade barriers that block foreign investment in their country. The US could blow Japan off the map and, in economic terms, I suspect it would have less impact than doing the same to China. I think the bottom line is that in any business relationship, and relationships between countries ARE business relationships in my view, the successful ones are those in which both countries have much to lose if the relationship goes south. In the case of China, I suspect the critical mass has been reached that in a war, both sides would suffer well beyond the point where either would consider the losses to be acceptable. In the case of Japan, I'm not so sure. In any case, all of this is conjecture on my part. My original posting was a prediction and much more of a commentary on my views toward the US government than it was my views on Japan. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #55 November 20, 2005 Here's a report on the matter, it doesn't have final FY2005 data, but it provides YTD info as of Oct-May (8 out of 12 months of the FY). It's a small PDF file, 16 pages. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32965.pdf I was incorrect on one thing, the Army did meet its goals for FY2004, it was lagging for FY2005 along with the Air National Guard and Army National Guard.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #56 November 20, 2005 Quoteso you think it is not possible to storm over an attacker? Well, I know Risk doesn't have any planes, but the US has a few. How are millions of poorly armed and trained Chinese militia going to "swarm over" all those pesky aircraft? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #57 November 20, 2005 First of all, skydvr hit the nail on the head. But just to humor you, no, we would not just start by throwing 200,000 soldiers on the beach and let them have at it. If we actually attacked China, which will not happen, but if we did, there'd be such a naval and aerial bombardment beforehand that there wouldn't be this massive Chinese Army ready to meet our Marines at the beach. China would be fucked from the air and sea long before the groundpounders would set foot on Chinese shores. You fuckin right I'm loud! This job ain't for pussies! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #58 November 20, 2005 QuoteFirst of all, skydvr hit the nail on the head. But just to humor you, no, we would not just start by throwing 200,000 soldiers on the beach and let them have at it. If we actually attacked China, which will not happen, but if we did, there'd be such a naval and aerial bombardment beforehand that there wouldn't be this massive Chinese Army ready to meet our Marines at the beach. China would be fucked from the air and sea long before the groundpounders would set foot on Chinese shores. You fuckin right I'm loud! This job ain't for pussies! Don't forget the XVIII Airborne Corps...they'd insist on some left overs for them to jump and air assault into. I mean, if I have to carry 1,000 rounds of SAW ammo, I better have something to shoot at to lighten the load. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #59 November 20, 2005 "Business is War". The object of war is to take over the assets of a country. Japan has taken over the electronics industry from the US. Where are the stereos and tvs manufactured? Japan would have eliminated the car industry except for the trade quotas. To get around that, they built factories in the US. Outboard motors too. For 7-8 years, Japan had superior quality outboards with oil injection. US manufacturers didn't install it (and sucked) until the Japanese product was sold in the US. Then, Koreans started building cars for the US market. Soon, the Chinese will enter the US car market and put the final nail in the US car manufacturers coffin. According to the CIO of Verizon, the cost of using Indian software developers is $50K less per person. As the industrial base fades, war will only be used against countries with natural resources - oil and food primarily. I would be nervous if I was in a South American countries with food resources, not Japan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #60 November 20, 2005 Ha, alright Gawain...I'll leave you a few buildings to lay some cover fire into...sound good? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #61 November 21, 2005 QuoteWell, you nuked them last time cos you were afraid of invading them. What's changed? t Not much. I probably owe my existence to the atom bomb, as my dad was drafted in August, 1945. He was on his way to his pre-induction physical on V-J Day in NYC when all the sirens and church bells started going off to signal that the Japs had thrown in the towel. I don't want, or expect, to see another war with Japan. But the Japs have this fucked up history of WWII that basically says they were minding their own business until the US suddenly nuked them for no apparent reason and it's a bunch of fucking bullshit. They invaded China back as early as 1936 and used the Chinese people and British POWs for bayonet practice and unspeakable medical experiments. They conscripted and abused thousands of Korean women to be whores for their armies all over Asia. Then they really fucked up and attacked Pearl Harbor. I knew a gentleman twenty years ago who was taken prisoner on Guam at the beginning of WWII. He and his brothers were US navy sailors. They were paraded through the streets of Tokyo and spent the rest of the war working as slave laborers inJapanese iron mines. Miraculously, he and his brothers all survived their captivity, but he weighed 84 lbs when he was liberated. For the rest of his life he never gave a fuck about Japanese people and I can't say as I blame him. So the US was already sick and tired from having fought Germany to their surrender. All the forecasts for an invasion of Japan were that the war would go on until 1952 with over a million American casualties. We just didn't give a fuck anymore and we wasted the cocksuckers. they asked for it and they richly deserved it. Thanks again for inviting an American to explain our proud history to a South African. Maybe you can explain Apartheid one of these days, I'm all fucking ears..... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #62 November 21, 2005 Apartheid sucked. It was, in my book, a crime against humanity that all people should be educated about. Unfortunately, that's not even happening here. Young voters, who were perhaps 7 years old when the first free elections were held here in 1994, don't understand the cost some of their elders paid to secure that democracy. I'm well aware of Japan's history both pre WW2 and during the conflict, and agree their marketing of their country has done a good job of sweeping a mountain of attrocities under the rug. My Grandfather was a casualty of that conflict, but fell in a different arena. Having said that, the entire human race has spent the past 20 000 years in conflict, and without exception has raped, pillaged, burned, murdered, subjugated and tortured their way across history. The US, however, remains the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in conflict. That's history. It's very difficult to justify in today's world regardless of how nessesary it may have been then, and unfortunately has cost the US the moral high ground. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #63 November 21, 2005 QuoteThe US, however, remains the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in conflict. That's history. It's very difficult to justify in today's world regardless of how nessesary it may have been then, and unfortunately has cost the US the moral high ground. t Are you serious?!!! Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #64 November 21, 2005 Yes. The US has a record of going about spanking small nations, none of which are capable of invading. Sooner or later, one of them will get a nuke to you, and use it on a "mixed" target. What are you going to say? "Unfair!" Well? You started this thread by saying the US should invade Japan for having lent the US money. What you're proposing isn't exactly moral, is it? Why do you think you should have the moral high ground? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #65 November 21, 2005 edited to remove a few inappropriate smartass remarks. My apologies to Tonto if you saw them before the edit.--Walt QuoteYes. The US has a record of going about spanking small nations, none of which are capable of invading. Sooner or later, one of them will get a nuke to you, and use it on a "mixed" target. What are you going to say? "Unfair!" I'm thinking the correct resonse would be to say "Fuck you", and blow 'em off the map. Quote Well? You started this thread by saying the US should invade Japan for having lent the US money. What you're proposing isn't exactly moral, is it? Why do you think you should have the moral high ground? t Read it again. I NEVER said that the US should invade Japan. It was (and still is) my prediction for the next big US war based on my cynical attitude toward the scumballs that run this country. Personally, I don't give a fuck about which country has the "moral high ground". Can you name one country that is run by truly caring, moral people? Chances are that you cannot because those are not the kind of people who run countries. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #66 November 21, 2005 You say "I'm serious" and ask "Are you serious?" a lot. When someone says "I'm serious." I have no reason to beleive they're not. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #67 November 21, 2005 QuoteYou say "I'm serious" and ask "Are you serious?" a lot. When someone says "I'm serious." I have no reason to beleive they're not. t I made the original posting after trying to put myself in the mindset that I think some of the people running this country have. I am indeed serious that I think they are that bad. Does that mean I approve of their twisted thinking? No. I don't come anywhere near thinking that kind of thinking is Ok, but I do think it exists. I asked if you were serious because that one paragraph from your posting is kind of hard for me to digest: The US, however, remains the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in conflict. That's history. It's very difficult to justify in today's world regardless of how nessesary it may have been then, and unfortunately has cost the US the moral high ground. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do at the time and I don't see how that could possibly be considered as a reason for the US not having the moral high ground. There are far more things the US has done in recent times that could warrant that attitude, but nuking Japan? I just don't see it. I think the most heinous thing the US government has done is the very deep lack of honesty with its citizens. If this was truly a country run by the will of the people, recent history would have been really different. Regardless, anyone who thinks their country has some sort of moral high ground needs to really take a close look at the people who run their country. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #68 November 21, 2005 I'm sorry you don't see the irony where a country that has, and has used the ultimate WMD is running about spanking others who may want what it has. There is no possible "responsible" way to use nukes. Quoteanyone who thinks their country has some sort of moral high ground needs to really take a close look at the people who run their country. Here we agree completely. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #69 November 21, 2005 QuoteI'm sorry you don't see the irony where a country that has, and has used the ultimate WMD is running about spanking others who may want what it has. There is no possible "responsible" way to use nukes. Quoteanyone who thinks their country has some sort of moral high ground needs to really take a close look at the people who run their country. Here we agree completely. t I do see the irony of it. Strange as it sounds, I think I trust the US government more than anyone else when it comes to nukes. I honestly think that NOBODY in the US truly wants to use nukes against anyone. I seriously doubt that the same can be said about governments of religious states. It would be a great thing if the world could go back to a time when nobody had nukes. That ain't gonna happen, though, and I think that keeping them out of the hands of people who likely would use them is a responsible thing to do. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #70 November 21, 2005 QuoteI do see the irony of it. Good. QuoteI honestly think that NOBODY in the US truly wants to use nukes against anyone. Well... the number of "Glass fucking parking lot" posts in this forum would make me question that thought... QuoteI seriously doubt that the same can be said about governments of religious states. Well... God speaks to President Bush, or President Bush hears the words of God, or has said that there are times he feels he's acting on God's behalf. If God said (or President Bush thought he said..) "Nuke em!" would he listen? I don't think ANY religion mixes well with nukes.. QuoteIt would be a great thing if the world could go back to a time when nobody had nukes. That ain't gonna happen, though, and I think that keeping them out of the hands of people who likely would use them is a responsible thing to do. Again we agree, but technology has a way of filtering down to the masses. If industrialists will pollute our planet for capital gain, then someone, somewhere will sell something to someone that should not be sold. The fact that there is terrorism at all is an indication that "intelligence" is always behind the curve. If they can build any bomb, and deliver it, it's only a matter of time before that bomb is a nuke. You can stop 100, or 1000. It only takes one to be a loser. The best defense, of course, is not to be a target in the 1st place. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #71 November 21, 2005 Even if Bush went completely insane and literally ordered the firing of nukes on a country based on "God's will," it wouldn't happen. Because of our system, it's impossible to launch nukes w/o several levels of consent, no matter what the guy in the WH thinks. So yeah, nukes are leaps and bounds safer in the US then in almost every other country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,067 #72 November 21, 2005 >Because of our system, it's impossible to launch nukes w/o >several levels of consent, no matter what the guy in the WH thinks. Not hard at all. 1. Get intelligence on some other country "proving" they are about to launch biological weapons at us. 2. Convince congress that we must act swiftly to prevent a catastrophe of biblical proportions. 3. Launch nukes. 4. Afterwards say that there really were biological weapons; the nuclear attack destroyed them all without a trace. We justified using nuclear weapons against civilians not to ensure victory (we knew we would win World War II) but to speed up victory a bit and save the US military the effort of going into Japan. That is our standard for use of nuclear weapons - making a war effort easier. Starting from that, there is no question in my mind that we'd launch a first strike to protect ourselves from a perceived (even contrived) threat. We are certainly willing to wage a major war over a perceived (and false) threat. Will our leaders in the future have the wisdom not to launch such attacks? I hope so. But it will take a lot more wisdom than we've been showing over the last few years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 November 21, 2005 QuoteI'm sorry you don't see the irony where a country that has, and has used the ultimate WMD is running about spanking others who may want what it has. There is no possible "responsible" way to use nukes. There's no irony there - it makes perfect sense. Members of the nuclear family have a huge advantage over non members, and its in their interests to keep it. Elementary school game theory. We've had the discussion on the properness of 1945 - not seeing your cause. Would it have been any more moral to suffucate the population of Hiroshima as was done in Tokyo? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #74 November 22, 2005 Your nice little 3 step process is incredibly naive. It takes more than a presidential order and congressional approval. There's a chain of numerous individuals who must confirm intel, confirm this is the course of action required, etc. It's not a "snap of the finger" system and the President gets his way. Plus nukes are useless against terrorism, which everyone, including Bush, realizes. If there was intel of an imminent bio attack...well it'd be from some terrorist org and therefore there'd be no city, state, etc. to target and launch on. Those days are over for the time being. QuoteThat is our standard for use of nuclear weapons - making a war effort easier Incredibly wrong. Yes we nuked Japan to end the war, but it was done to save an estimated million American soldiers from a country who'd already lost countless numbers fighting since 1941 in Europe and the Pacific. Not to mention the Japanese brought it completey on themselves and quite frankly, deserved it. Bottom line in war - Us or them. I choose them to die. I don't feel one bit bad about us using nukes against them, better them then my grandpa or any other Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #75 November 22, 2005 QuotePlus nukes are useless against terrorism, which everyone, including Bush, realizes. Against terrorism? Consider for a moment other reasons for employ, despite the banner under which it might be sold. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
likearock 2 #53 November 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteowain glyndwr. What language is that? My guess is Celtic (?) It's the name of an Orc chieftain. I thought the Orc chieftain's name was Orson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #54 November 20, 2005 QuoteLike most others, I think we'd go to war with China first because we're ideologically opposed to their system of government. This is where our thinking really differs. I don't think wars are fought over ideology. I think they are fought over very primal things such as greed or malice or survival. The US has a long history of being chummy with some real scumbags when it was profitable or advantageous in some other way. It always seems to come back to haunt us, though. Maybe Nixon was being some sort of real visionary when he moved to "improve" relations between the US and China. I still don't see it, but time will tell. Meanwhile, China is a source of extremely cheap labor and products for the US, so the Chinese government would have to do something extremely evil to the US to screw up relations. They could conduct mass slaughter of babies and puppies on CNN and (IMO), while the US government would public condemn it, they wouldn't do anything that would negatively impact US investment in China. As far as I can tell, though, the US really doesn't have all that much investment in Japan. Japan has trade barriers that block foreign investment in their country. The US could blow Japan off the map and, in economic terms, I suspect it would have less impact than doing the same to China. I think the bottom line is that in any business relationship, and relationships between countries ARE business relationships in my view, the successful ones are those in which both countries have much to lose if the relationship goes south. In the case of China, I suspect the critical mass has been reached that in a war, both sides would suffer well beyond the point where either would consider the losses to be acceptable. In the case of Japan, I'm not so sure. In any case, all of this is conjecture on my part. My original posting was a prediction and much more of a commentary on my views toward the US government than it was my views on Japan. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #55 November 20, 2005 Here's a report on the matter, it doesn't have final FY2005 data, but it provides YTD info as of Oct-May (8 out of 12 months of the FY). It's a small PDF file, 16 pages. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32965.pdf I was incorrect on one thing, the Army did meet its goals for FY2004, it was lagging for FY2005 along with the Air National Guard and Army National Guard.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #56 November 20, 2005 Quoteso you think it is not possible to storm over an attacker? Well, I know Risk doesn't have any planes, but the US has a few. How are millions of poorly armed and trained Chinese militia going to "swarm over" all those pesky aircraft? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #57 November 20, 2005 First of all, skydvr hit the nail on the head. But just to humor you, no, we would not just start by throwing 200,000 soldiers on the beach and let them have at it. If we actually attacked China, which will not happen, but if we did, there'd be such a naval and aerial bombardment beforehand that there wouldn't be this massive Chinese Army ready to meet our Marines at the beach. China would be fucked from the air and sea long before the groundpounders would set foot on Chinese shores. You fuckin right I'm loud! This job ain't for pussies! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #58 November 20, 2005 QuoteFirst of all, skydvr hit the nail on the head. But just to humor you, no, we would not just start by throwing 200,000 soldiers on the beach and let them have at it. If we actually attacked China, which will not happen, but if we did, there'd be such a naval and aerial bombardment beforehand that there wouldn't be this massive Chinese Army ready to meet our Marines at the beach. China would be fucked from the air and sea long before the groundpounders would set foot on Chinese shores. You fuckin right I'm loud! This job ain't for pussies! Don't forget the XVIII Airborne Corps...they'd insist on some left overs for them to jump and air assault into. I mean, if I have to carry 1,000 rounds of SAW ammo, I better have something to shoot at to lighten the load. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #59 November 20, 2005 "Business is War". The object of war is to take over the assets of a country. Japan has taken over the electronics industry from the US. Where are the stereos and tvs manufactured? Japan would have eliminated the car industry except for the trade quotas. To get around that, they built factories in the US. Outboard motors too. For 7-8 years, Japan had superior quality outboards with oil injection. US manufacturers didn't install it (and sucked) until the Japanese product was sold in the US. Then, Koreans started building cars for the US market. Soon, the Chinese will enter the US car market and put the final nail in the US car manufacturers coffin. According to the CIO of Verizon, the cost of using Indian software developers is $50K less per person. As the industrial base fades, war will only be used against countries with natural resources - oil and food primarily. I would be nervous if I was in a South American countries with food resources, not Japan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #60 November 20, 2005 Ha, alright Gawain...I'll leave you a few buildings to lay some cover fire into...sound good? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #61 November 21, 2005 QuoteWell, you nuked them last time cos you were afraid of invading them. What's changed? t Not much. I probably owe my existence to the atom bomb, as my dad was drafted in August, 1945. He was on his way to his pre-induction physical on V-J Day in NYC when all the sirens and church bells started going off to signal that the Japs had thrown in the towel. I don't want, or expect, to see another war with Japan. But the Japs have this fucked up history of WWII that basically says they were minding their own business until the US suddenly nuked them for no apparent reason and it's a bunch of fucking bullshit. They invaded China back as early as 1936 and used the Chinese people and British POWs for bayonet practice and unspeakable medical experiments. They conscripted and abused thousands of Korean women to be whores for their armies all over Asia. Then they really fucked up and attacked Pearl Harbor. I knew a gentleman twenty years ago who was taken prisoner on Guam at the beginning of WWII. He and his brothers were US navy sailors. They were paraded through the streets of Tokyo and spent the rest of the war working as slave laborers inJapanese iron mines. Miraculously, he and his brothers all survived their captivity, but he weighed 84 lbs when he was liberated. For the rest of his life he never gave a fuck about Japanese people and I can't say as I blame him. So the US was already sick and tired from having fought Germany to their surrender. All the forecasts for an invasion of Japan were that the war would go on until 1952 with over a million American casualties. We just didn't give a fuck anymore and we wasted the cocksuckers. they asked for it and they richly deserved it. Thanks again for inviting an American to explain our proud history to a South African. Maybe you can explain Apartheid one of these days, I'm all fucking ears..... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #62 November 21, 2005 Apartheid sucked. It was, in my book, a crime against humanity that all people should be educated about. Unfortunately, that's not even happening here. Young voters, who were perhaps 7 years old when the first free elections were held here in 1994, don't understand the cost some of their elders paid to secure that democracy. I'm well aware of Japan's history both pre WW2 and during the conflict, and agree their marketing of their country has done a good job of sweeping a mountain of attrocities under the rug. My Grandfather was a casualty of that conflict, but fell in a different arena. Having said that, the entire human race has spent the past 20 000 years in conflict, and without exception has raped, pillaged, burned, murdered, subjugated and tortured their way across history. The US, however, remains the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in conflict. That's history. It's very difficult to justify in today's world regardless of how nessesary it may have been then, and unfortunately has cost the US the moral high ground. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #63 November 21, 2005 QuoteThe US, however, remains the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in conflict. That's history. It's very difficult to justify in today's world regardless of how nessesary it may have been then, and unfortunately has cost the US the moral high ground. t Are you serious?!!! Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #64 November 21, 2005 Yes. The US has a record of going about spanking small nations, none of which are capable of invading. Sooner or later, one of them will get a nuke to you, and use it on a "mixed" target. What are you going to say? "Unfair!" Well? You started this thread by saying the US should invade Japan for having lent the US money. What you're proposing isn't exactly moral, is it? Why do you think you should have the moral high ground? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #65 November 21, 2005 edited to remove a few inappropriate smartass remarks. My apologies to Tonto if you saw them before the edit.--Walt QuoteYes. The US has a record of going about spanking small nations, none of which are capable of invading. Sooner or later, one of them will get a nuke to you, and use it on a "mixed" target. What are you going to say? "Unfair!" I'm thinking the correct resonse would be to say "Fuck you", and blow 'em off the map. Quote Well? You started this thread by saying the US should invade Japan for having lent the US money. What you're proposing isn't exactly moral, is it? Why do you think you should have the moral high ground? t Read it again. I NEVER said that the US should invade Japan. It was (and still is) my prediction for the next big US war based on my cynical attitude toward the scumballs that run this country. Personally, I don't give a fuck about which country has the "moral high ground". Can you name one country that is run by truly caring, moral people? Chances are that you cannot because those are not the kind of people who run countries. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #66 November 21, 2005 You say "I'm serious" and ask "Are you serious?" a lot. When someone says "I'm serious." I have no reason to beleive they're not. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #67 November 21, 2005 QuoteYou say "I'm serious" and ask "Are you serious?" a lot. When someone says "I'm serious." I have no reason to beleive they're not. t I made the original posting after trying to put myself in the mindset that I think some of the people running this country have. I am indeed serious that I think they are that bad. Does that mean I approve of their twisted thinking? No. I don't come anywhere near thinking that kind of thinking is Ok, but I do think it exists. I asked if you were serious because that one paragraph from your posting is kind of hard for me to digest: The US, however, remains the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in conflict. That's history. It's very difficult to justify in today's world regardless of how nessesary it may have been then, and unfortunately has cost the US the moral high ground. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do at the time and I don't see how that could possibly be considered as a reason for the US not having the moral high ground. There are far more things the US has done in recent times that could warrant that attitude, but nuking Japan? I just don't see it. I think the most heinous thing the US government has done is the very deep lack of honesty with its citizens. If this was truly a country run by the will of the people, recent history would have been really different. Regardless, anyone who thinks their country has some sort of moral high ground needs to really take a close look at the people who run their country. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #68 November 21, 2005 I'm sorry you don't see the irony where a country that has, and has used the ultimate WMD is running about spanking others who may want what it has. There is no possible "responsible" way to use nukes. Quoteanyone who thinks their country has some sort of moral high ground needs to really take a close look at the people who run their country. Here we agree completely. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #69 November 21, 2005 QuoteI'm sorry you don't see the irony where a country that has, and has used the ultimate WMD is running about spanking others who may want what it has. There is no possible "responsible" way to use nukes. Quoteanyone who thinks their country has some sort of moral high ground needs to really take a close look at the people who run their country. Here we agree completely. t I do see the irony of it. Strange as it sounds, I think I trust the US government more than anyone else when it comes to nukes. I honestly think that NOBODY in the US truly wants to use nukes against anyone. I seriously doubt that the same can be said about governments of religious states. It would be a great thing if the world could go back to a time when nobody had nukes. That ain't gonna happen, though, and I think that keeping them out of the hands of people who likely would use them is a responsible thing to do. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #70 November 21, 2005 QuoteI do see the irony of it. Good. QuoteI honestly think that NOBODY in the US truly wants to use nukes against anyone. Well... the number of "Glass fucking parking lot" posts in this forum would make me question that thought... QuoteI seriously doubt that the same can be said about governments of religious states. Well... God speaks to President Bush, or President Bush hears the words of God, or has said that there are times he feels he's acting on God's behalf. If God said (or President Bush thought he said..) "Nuke em!" would he listen? I don't think ANY religion mixes well with nukes.. QuoteIt would be a great thing if the world could go back to a time when nobody had nukes. That ain't gonna happen, though, and I think that keeping them out of the hands of people who likely would use them is a responsible thing to do. Again we agree, but technology has a way of filtering down to the masses. If industrialists will pollute our planet for capital gain, then someone, somewhere will sell something to someone that should not be sold. The fact that there is terrorism at all is an indication that "intelligence" is always behind the curve. If they can build any bomb, and deliver it, it's only a matter of time before that bomb is a nuke. You can stop 100, or 1000. It only takes one to be a loser. The best defense, of course, is not to be a target in the 1st place. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #71 November 21, 2005 Even if Bush went completely insane and literally ordered the firing of nukes on a country based on "God's will," it wouldn't happen. Because of our system, it's impossible to launch nukes w/o several levels of consent, no matter what the guy in the WH thinks. So yeah, nukes are leaps and bounds safer in the US then in almost every other country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,067 #72 November 21, 2005 >Because of our system, it's impossible to launch nukes w/o >several levels of consent, no matter what the guy in the WH thinks. Not hard at all. 1. Get intelligence on some other country "proving" they are about to launch biological weapons at us. 2. Convince congress that we must act swiftly to prevent a catastrophe of biblical proportions. 3. Launch nukes. 4. Afterwards say that there really were biological weapons; the nuclear attack destroyed them all without a trace. We justified using nuclear weapons against civilians not to ensure victory (we knew we would win World War II) but to speed up victory a bit and save the US military the effort of going into Japan. That is our standard for use of nuclear weapons - making a war effort easier. Starting from that, there is no question in my mind that we'd launch a first strike to protect ourselves from a perceived (even contrived) threat. We are certainly willing to wage a major war over a perceived (and false) threat. Will our leaders in the future have the wisdom not to launch such attacks? I hope so. But it will take a lot more wisdom than we've been showing over the last few years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #73 November 21, 2005 QuoteI'm sorry you don't see the irony where a country that has, and has used the ultimate WMD is running about spanking others who may want what it has. There is no possible "responsible" way to use nukes. There's no irony there - it makes perfect sense. Members of the nuclear family have a huge advantage over non members, and its in their interests to keep it. Elementary school game theory. We've had the discussion on the properness of 1945 - not seeing your cause. Would it have been any more moral to suffucate the population of Hiroshima as was done in Tokyo? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #74 November 22, 2005 Your nice little 3 step process is incredibly naive. It takes more than a presidential order and congressional approval. There's a chain of numerous individuals who must confirm intel, confirm this is the course of action required, etc. It's not a "snap of the finger" system and the President gets his way. Plus nukes are useless against terrorism, which everyone, including Bush, realizes. If there was intel of an imminent bio attack...well it'd be from some terrorist org and therefore there'd be no city, state, etc. to target and launch on. Those days are over for the time being. QuoteThat is our standard for use of nuclear weapons - making a war effort easier Incredibly wrong. Yes we nuked Japan to end the war, but it was done to save an estimated million American soldiers from a country who'd already lost countless numbers fighting since 1941 in Europe and the Pacific. Not to mention the Japanese brought it completey on themselves and quite frankly, deserved it. Bottom line in war - Us or them. I choose them to die. I don't feel one bit bad about us using nukes against them, better them then my grandpa or any other Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #75 November 22, 2005 QuotePlus nukes are useless against terrorism, which everyone, including Bush, realizes. Against terrorism? Consider for a moment other reasons for employ, despite the banner under which it might be sold. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
