You're right of course...it's the threat that keeps things safe. It was called "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction). But the idea of the US attacking the Soviets is ludicrous.For the record, I'm an ex-Naval Officer and have been privy to more "shit" than you two combined.
-
North Korea Missle Launch
-
for the record, that has little bearing. your navy past.it means you got to be privy to alot of shit, pending what you did in teh navy.good for you. its really the shits isnt it?did ya have a secret clearence?Thats the real bitch of it, I know all this cool shit, and I cant fucking tell anyone, secrets are fucking maddening. some of it is real stupid shit that youd think means nothing to anyone, but its still secret or classified or what not and you cant say a fucking thing.anyways, to teh topic at hand.do you really belive, especially with your naval past, that we never thought of it?that it was never though of, researched and planned and decided against?good fuck man, people are foul and shitty bastards, self survival instincts are teh strongest thing we got. I know fit had to be contemplated, if not actually researched into the outcome and possible outcomes.do you have any idea how many times inteh 70's and 80's I heard people on the street and teachers say we should nuke em?now those are nothign more then people, with no idea of what happens when a nuke goes off, or how hard it is to actually make one go off, Ill give ya that, stupid uneducated (at least uneducated in the reallity of nukes) people expressing what thier head and heart tell them is right.do yo really think that other men with more power havent thought the same thing and contemplated nuking the russians?when you do the shit, yo know more, when you deal in explosives you get the infomration that makes you start thinking about what happens to people when they go off. I doubt, that since its inception in world war II, when we didi drop the fuckers, that anyone who has knowledge in the field said "lets blow the pinko bastards up!"but politicians have the power, they make the decisions, and the overwhelming percent of them, do not have the experience and knowledge of nukes.Now you can pick my shit apart, frip my ass over typos and spelling and grammar.fucking go for it.but put that shit aside, think about what I said and can you really tell me with certainty, that the us has never contemplated nuking the russians ?
-
I had a top-secret clearance at one point. But the reason I say what I did is because somebody else posted that the Soviets had nukes to prevent themselves from being attacked by the US. Pure garbage. With recent exception, the US has never attacked anybody first. Stalin was a certifiable paranoid that made Hitler look like a sunday-school teacher. Hitler was responsible for starting the concentration camps where about 13.5 million were eventually put to death. Stalin's gulags account for somewhere between 70 and 110 million deaths...making him the biggest dirtbag in recorded history. AND THEY WERE HIS OWN PEOPLE!!! There was nothing this guy wouldn't have done if he thought he could get away with it. He held on to all the countries that he crossed over to get to Germany at the end of WWII...it would have been like the US holding onto France and making it the 51st state! No...the aggressive aspect of the Cold War was with Russia...not the US. All europe knew it too...which is why (in spite of their jealousy as to our being the new center of the world) they were our friends. But as soon as the Soviet threat was gone, their true colors began to show.
-
suggest that his death was what saved us in that situationWasn't the crisis over before he died?> I'm an ex-Naval Officer and have been privy to more "shit" than you two combined.You were an officer during the cold war? I don't think the Pentagon would share their ideas and contingency plans with you unless you had the right security clearance and a need to know. Were you an admiral?> But the idea of the US attacking the Soviets is ludicrous.If they could keep it secret long enough into the mission, and they could decapitate the control centers, who knows? I'm not saying that there were people anywhere near the button who were that crazy, but after seeing the things the U.S. has been involved in militarily since the cold war, nothing would surprise me. We came awfully close during the Cuban Missile Crisis.There's no doubt that the Pentagon has contingency plans for striking North Korea preemptively. Iran as well (with the added complexity of Israel's involvement, or lack thereof).
-
"There's no doubt that the Pentagon has contingency plans for striking North Korea preemptively."You bet they do...as do they most of the other "trouble-makers" in the world (like Iran, presently). A bunch of missiles are no good at all if you don't have any idea as to where you want to fire them. And before anybody asks, this is public knowledge...if you know where to look. The other countries know it too, which is why it works so well to prevent them from doing something monumentally stupid.
-
somebody else posted that the Soviets had nukes to prevent themselves from being attacked by the US. Pure garbage. With recent exception, the US has never attacked anybody first.That would be me. It never happens until it happens. If it could happen in 2004, why couldn't it happen in '64, '74, or '84? I have news for you: the U.S. was very busy flexing its muscles for a long time. Perhaps you've heard of the Monroe doctrine? We've come to interpret that as meaning that if things don't go the way we want them to in Latin America, we get to invade.I knew a guy who was in the special forces in the late 70's/early 80's, and there was a lot of stuff going on in El Salvador and Nicaragua (and presumably Guatemala). > Stalin was a certifiable paranoid that made Hitler look like a sunday-school teacher.So isn't it conceivable that someone with their mentality might consider a strike against the U.S.? And if you think that, isn't there some circumstance where some people at the top might think it's a good idea to preclude that from happening?[For what it's worth, I had an industrial Secret clearance. It wasn't really worth much beyond having specific details about the projects you were working on, as needed. I was working with aircraft-based antisubmarine warfare stuff, for the airplane that Bush "flew" to the USS Abraham two years ago, where he annonced "the end of major combat".
-
Oh, I absolutely DO think Stalin would have considered on attack on the US if he thought he could get away with it. But we had nukes then and he didn't. Our having them was a good reason for him to think twice...which was a good reason for us to hold onto them until the Soviet Union was no more.Nowdays, we have to think about the Iran's and North Korea's of the world thinking they can draw attention to themselves by puffing up their chests. They know America won't do anything unless provoked...and we prove it to them everytime we stop short of making a parking-lot out of their country everytime they threaten us or our interests.I am against war, but I am for saving lives. Dropping the bomb on Japan saved an estimated 4 million lives. Sometimes it's the right thing to do, in my mind.
-
I think you're right, in that Kim Jong Il is no more suicidal than than Stalin was. What's more of a concern would be someone who's even crazier than Mullah Omar, who wouldn't hesitate to launch a nuclear attack if he were capable. In the course of decades, isn't it conceivable that some crazy leader will have that ability?I wonder what would have happened if the Soviet Union had crumbled in a way that nuclear weapons infrastructure wound up in the hands of a psychopath.
-
In reply to:
It also says that the UN's pecekeeping forces have had great success.
That's laughable.
Despite its recent lack of credibility, the UN has been involved in a great number of peace keeping operation in the world sicne its creation, on the scale of which has never been seen before. Go through the all the UN peace keeping operations and tell me that not one of them produced some positive effect of soem kind, even if that positive effect was nothing more than giving some families food, or saving some lives. An extra-national organisation can only do so much, it cannot overide national governments, but the world should be thankful for what it has done, even though it now enters what appear to be its last days.
-
In reply to:
nuke the countries who we know support terrorists
Ireland?
-
In reply to:
You really think that's the only reason they have to be unhappy? Man, are you uninformed. You must be getting all your news from Bill O'Reiley.
Madrid and London had to deal with major terrorist attacks because of their countries' involvement in the U.S. war/occupation/guerilla war in Iraq.
To nyour first point I do think animosity is always largely directed at the most powerful country at a given time. Britain is quite possibly the second most hated country in the world, in part as left over animosity from our age of dominance from the defeat of Napoleon up until World War 1. Naturally America got the top most ahted position of who is hated by their increase in power. Obviously recent events have added fuel to such hatred, but didnt create it.
And no America is not to blame for the Madrid and London bombings. Spain and Britain invaded Afghanistan (and the latter also Iraq), and we have paid the price for it.
-
And no America is not to blame for the Madrid and London bombings. Spain and Britain invaded Afghanistan (and the latter also Iraq), and we have paid the price for it. No, it's not literally America's fault that Madrid and London were bombed, but they probably wouldn't have been if they did not get involved in the war in Iraq, which the U.S. started. I don't think Afghanistan was the issue; more likely, it was Iraq. I'd be surprised to see Spain getting bombed again by Islamic terrorists.
-
I think England is disliked cause of Kind Edward the I.Atleast your not hated with a passion like America?
-
I thought Spain was only in Afghanistan, though I would need to confirm that. From talking to the Muslim girl at my girl she always brings up Afghanistan before Iraq (possibly due to being Pakistani and thus having a greater feeling of geogrpahic links with Afghantistan). Anyway Spanish and British governments gave there full backing, so it isnt fair to lump blame on the Americans. If that Spanish or current British administrations had found themselves number 1 power in the world then I believe they would have made similar choices.
-
Yes we are hated with passion. Have been since about 1815, when it became apparant there was noone in the world who could wrest from us our power.As for King Edward the 1....well wtf?! The one who invaded Scotland? He's hardly a Britisher whose given the whole world a reason for resentment. EDIT: okay so Edward invaded Wales aswell which officially makes him a bad man, but that doesnt qualify him as the reason the world feels animosity towards Britain.
-
I dont hate you guys Just cause your the least liked country in Europe, followed by France. I don't think 200 something countries hate you like they hate America. Maybe you should go take back all your Colonies your people died for. Then you will own half the world muhahaha.Robert the Bruce took care of Edward .
-
We are hated by so many people throughout the world, its rather rediculous really, when many other countries have alot more to answer for. The difference being that we just happened to be more powerful.King Edward died of old age, Robert the Bruce had the pleasure of defeating his successor instead.
-
What? I though he killed Edward! So did he kill Edward II?
-
Bruce killed no kings. Edward II died in England after being deposed in a coup.
-
Dont you have some sort of statue of him? Whos the one who backstabbed William Wallace for not being of "noble" blood?I think I'm going to watch Bravehart again!