Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Well they didnt surrender, they didnt disband their military, and their sucide bombings showed they were not going to stop, we had to shut them down at the core, and an invasion would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives at the best estimates.
Right... but there is way more to it than that. Look at the Geography of the situation. The Americans were winning/had won the war in Europe. Our military would be station there. Then, if we won the war in the pacific, and took control over Japan, that would put us in a very favorable position over the USSR. If we could invade the Russians from Europe, and at the same time launch an invasion from Japan, the Russians would then be forced to fight a two front war.Quote:
Well they didnt surrender, they didnt disband their military, and their sucide bombings showed they were not going to stop, we had to shut them down at the core, and an invasion would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives at the best estimates.
Also, there was yet another reason as to why we used the atomic bomb, and why we used both atomic bombs. It was to send a message to Russia. One: That we had the atomic bomb, and Two: That we had more than one. By dropping two bombs the Russians would have to guess whether or not we had more than one. In reality, we didn't. We had two. But both bombs were dropped to make a statement of power.
Yeah USA has more nukes than anyone else.Because we are bastards yeah..I won't lie to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
Well while its true we are bastards, i think that its a good deterent against Aliens, North Korea, and China from attacking. I think we need nukes, we just dont need so many.
Like anyone would attack in the near future. Most countires are still recovering from wars and communism..
lol thats why the USA must keep these countries under crappy worst than 3rd world living conditions.So they dont pose a threat.The only way to do this is to convince people that they do pose a threat.
edit- USA is no different from the romans.The romans did hte same crap with celtic tribes and other tribes sucha s the Huns and othe rgroups.They would ally with one of them then the next day they are Rome's greatest enemies.Thats how they kept things under control in there favor.
They do that all the time, how about we dumb down USA so they wont be #1 and doing those things to other countries? For freedom right? I like to see that same mentality when you are at the recieving end and up the @$$ of it too for doing it to others.
The United States, and many other world powers, but mostly the U.S., demands that other countries abandon their nuclear ambitions. Everyone can point out that the U.S. is a hypocrit because they have loads of nuclear weapons. When it comes down to it, the other nations want nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the world powers who already have their nukes. So they'll disarm if the powers disarm. But the powers won't disarm because then they become vulnerable to nations that don't disarm.
Simply put, no matter what happens, we're all screwed over. The safest answer would be for everyone to completely disarm, but that's unrealistic. Another unrealistic alternative is to let everyone have their missiles. By naming countries who can and can't have nuclear weapons people piss other people off. If everyone has the weapons, at least it puts everyone in a stalemate. "If you fire at us, we'll fire at you."
But since both of those options are unrealistic we are stuck in a world where the powers make the decisions. Let's face it, unless Iran does what the United States wants, there will be trouble, most likely military involvement. It's just how it's going to be. It doesn't mean it's right, but that's just the way it is. They say the winners write history, that doesn't only apply to after a war is over.
Yeah I'm jsut noticing how these idiots in washington don't look back in history to see htat there mkaing the same stupid mistakes that actually made rome itself fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
It's a little unrealistic to compare Rome to the United States, I think. Thing is, the world we live in isn't the same as it used to be. The world is a lot smaller now. It's much easier to have an international influence, even control areas across the globe, than it was way back when. Rome fell because it spread its empire too thin. It's a bit more difficult to do that when we can cross the globe, realistically, in give-or-take a day. Such global influence is hardly unrealistic, and the United States has been able to manage to control areas half way across the world since the early 1900's.
However, just because the United States can maintain such an "empire" doesn't make it any more right.
If you really think they didnt look back at history..then you think too stupidly of them..they prolly did look back at history and stuff...and as long as its not fresh in anyone's mind or maskable, they will ignore it for their own ideals.
Back to the nuking part.I';m wondering why thry edon't get this voer with know and blow us to oblivion already?Its the waiting that sucks.
edit-they need to watch htat mvoie Wargames amd realise we are all screwed over if they use the nukes or yet even have them.It was kewl how htat computer compared nuclear warfare to tic tac toe and found out everyone was screwed either way.
I think the United States, and other world powers, realize that a nuclear holocaust would destroy us all. That's exactly why there were treaties made by the UN that prevent countries for possessing nuclear weapons. If a nation doesn't have nukes, it can't use nukes.
The whole problem is that because the world powers have nukes, every other country in the world believes they have a right to have them as well. Sure, it seems only fair. But here's a true a cliché, life isn't fair.
Why doesn't the UN go the Final FAntasy 11 route except they renamed a few things.Suh as.Instead of being called adventurers we become Mercs.But the use of mercenaries really does scare the UN.Maily because of what happened in 1996.When a private ARMs group took control of an african country that was under control of rebels.There were less mercs in the arms force thant ehre was rebels.They literally abolished the rebels.Only one merc casualty.And it was jsut a gun shot wound he didn't die just an injury.Then the UN went in a uproar.They got scared because this would change the way warfare has always been fault.So they ordered teh private ARMS to get out and they did.And the rebels rised again and killed UN peacekeepers.Then UN pulled out.Another thing is the country that hired the ARMS payed less when they hired the private corp.The UN peacekeepers who did a crappy job made that country pay 2 billion bucks.While the private ARMs only wanted 22 mil.And UN peacekeepers pulled out after a few of them were captured and killed by the rebels.But yeah UN hates the privatization of warfare..
Well, thank god for this.
It looks like Bush may actually behave rationally for once.