|
| Thread: Nuclear Knowledge! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted December 19, 2002 11:08 AM |
|
|
Looks like it's agree to disagree time on that. Like I said, given the choice, control by a neighbouring nation or destruction who knows what you would do? Sacrifice the country or not? Japan is no longer the nation of the 1940's, it is unlikely to say the least that that kind of fanatical devotion would be seen again.
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted December 20, 2002 03:01 AM |
|
|
IYY:
I did not literally mean "I don't know why you brought up Kamikaze", I was just trying to say that your citing of Japan being "the only nation that might have tried something like that" is not reasonable - it's not even logical when considering you saying Israel "would not use the nukes even if it was the worst situation", after they have spent all the time and money to make the weapon! Oh, you meant the weapon, which is made by "Sacrificing" the people's hard earned money, is only for showing off and strictly not to be used even in the WORST situation?
As Bort said, Japan is the only nation in the World that has had the first hand experience of the effect of a n-bomb; and that, in case you did not realise, is the reason why Japan does not have any n-weapon and the people are always pulling a big fuss about anything "nuclear".
In war, there are ONLY sacrifices, be it country or people. Japan may make the decision during the WORST situation, that is if they have the weapon in the first place, but so may Israel.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted December 20, 2002 03:41 AM |
|
|
I am sorry about what I said about Japan, I can see why it's wrong. However, it has nothing to do with Israel but any country of this size using a nuclear weapon so close to itself. It just isn't going to happen. It's countries and politics, not some kind of children's game. No president or prime minister will ever do something as stupid and irrational as destroy the whole country. After all, you must agree that leaders do their job for their country and if they destroy everything it will include killing all their voters and their families and their friends and themselves. NOBODY will do it.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 20, 2002 10:46 AM |
|
|
|
America and Russia were more than prepared to if necessary and sacrifice their european allies
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted December 20, 2002 09:35 PM |
|
|
Not Russia, USSR or Soviet Union.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 20, 2002 10:43 PM |
|
|
I believe it was nonetheless clear to everyone which nation I meant
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2002 07:55 AM |
|
|
Quote
"America and Russia were more than prepared to if necessary and sacrifice their european allies"
Opps my bad...I thought America had literally sacrificed about 200,000 of our children to assist our allies in WWII. Guess I am wrong. Now when exactly did our europeon allies sacrifice that many of their children to save our butts?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted December 21, 2002 02:31 PM |
|
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 21, 2002 03:23 PM |
|
|
Jesus man, think, if WWIII went bad for russia and she was fighting to defend moscow, then it looked like they would loose that, do you seriously imagine they'd give a damn about poland, hungary etc or you think they'd not nuke america for the sake of countries they never cared for. Now turn the boot on the other foot, america and her allies are loosing badly, and western europe is falling, you think america would allow that? I'm not even blaming you, hell in a similar situation I'd be damned sure i'd nuke russia and western europe. I was just stating an opinion, I was NOT being critical.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 21, 2002 03:32 PM |
|
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 21, 2002 03:40 PM |
|
|
Oh yes and I believe you will find that without the sacrifice (not on the same scale) made by France and others anabled your nation to exist. Without them independance would have been squashed.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 22, 2002 08:03 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 22 Dec 2002
|
Well as you mentioned...it is not even comparable on the same scale....how many French died in the American revolution???
Moreover we had to buy Frances help. Nobody gave us money to enter WWII.
France did help us after we paid them….but I don't know enough to state whether it would of changed the revolutions overall success...but my educated guess would be that it wouldn't of changed the ultimate end...only made it more difficult to achieve.
Plus one of France's central motives was cause all the world powers were constantly pissing on each other and helping the enemies of their enemies.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 22, 2002 03:15 PM |
|
|
Facts for you then: The british army at yorktown (the largest in the americas at the time) surrendered for two main reasons: Firstly they were heavily outnumbered, but over 50% of those forces were........ french (ie they would have been on equal terms without french intervention). Also their supplies to continue the siege and war were prevented from reaching them by......... the french!
Also we paid an extrordinary amount of money for clapped out ships, planes and guns in the early part of the second world war. I highly doubt anyone could realistically claim america joined WWII for purely humanitarian reasons or simply because you were attacked. You talk about the French being against other powers, yet was this not what america was safegaurding against by ensuring that neither nazi germany, nor Communist russia would dominate the industrial power of Europe?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 22, 2002 09:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh yes and I believe you will find that without the sacrifice (not on the same scale) made by France and others anabled your nation to exist. Without them independance would have been squashed.
France wanted to be on the winning side, so they waited to help us until it looked like we would win. (Saratoga) Plus the French hated the British, and still do. We asked the foriegn exchange student from France if they liked Germany after the war and she said they did but they stll hated the British. I laughed.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 23, 2002 12:30 AM |
|
|
I'm sorry should this worry me? We hate them as well 
And the winning side? I'm sorry I thought we held onto canada (A large chunk of our colonies in america). We barely even bothered to send a decent british contigent to fight you....... ie we couldn't be bothered! Had we REALLY tried we would have thrashed you long before the french joined in 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted December 23, 2002 05:03 AM |
|
|
Yeah right!
Let me see a link from a creditable source on that!
If the British even wanted to hold their colonies why didn't they send reinforcements. George Washington was the master of the fighting retreat. And the Swamp Fox was the master of guerilla tactics.
I can't wait for Dargon's reaction to this!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 23, 2002 07:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If the British even wanted to hold their colonies why didn't they send reinforcements.
Have you looked at the composition of the british army fighting in that war? A large chunk of the troops out there were german mercenaries and locally raised loyalists (yes hard as it may seem some of you did fight WITH the british, you didn't ALL hate us).
Actually given that you were becoming something of a pain in the neck given your democratic nonsense and the fact that even without you we still ended up owning 1/5 of the world, I don't think we can grumble too much...... The british army was already stretched fighting other wars in other locations, add to that the threat of a french invasion if reinforcements were sent and you begin to get a reasonable idea why we retained our own troops and sent germans and locals to do the job instead!
Of course without france............. well I'm sure you can work that one out
Or were you disputing the fact that we held onto canada?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted December 23, 2002 05:28 PM |
|
|
We kicked your butt then and later in the War of 1812. If you didn't want the colonies why did you attack in 1812?
Funny how if you would have kept the colonies you might still be a world power. But no, you had to let us go and we surpassed you economically and had more land then you.
You got kicked out of india. Maybe if you didn't spread your troops so thin you might still have your land.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 23, 2002 06:41 PM |
|
|
*Sighs*
A little history lesson methinks.........
YOU invaded canada 1st with the aim of "liberating" the canadians, and failed, we invaded you back and suceeded in burning washington but were turned away at boston. Later you beat us at new orleans, but basically neither side came out of the 1812 war any worse or better off than when they started.
YOU have more land than us because we had the damned common decency to hand back the land we stole of native populations and not wipe them out and stick them on remote reservations....... Try handing back all the land you stole of indian nations and see how big and powerful YOU would be!
And it had little to do with troops actually, the empire was barely under threat until the japanese and germans threatened it during WWII. Post WWII we gave the empire up largely because
A: America refused us the marshall plan until we did so, whereas NO other european nation had this imposed on them
B: Politically it was madness to claim to be democratic and hold an empire
C: Political will in the nations we controlled was firmly against being part of the empire and for the 1st time most of them could survive the transition to independance
And there are many others. Millitary inability was just a small part of this. France had some millitary ability to maintain her colonies, look where that got her in Indochina and Algeria..............
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2002 07:33 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Also we paid an extrordinary amount of money for clapped out ships, planes and guns in the early part of the second world war.”
I really hope you aren’t saying that America didn’t freely given millions upon millions of dollars to help out Europe both before we entered the war, during the war, and after the war.
Quote
“I'm sorry should this worry me? We hate them as well ”
I never knew this. What are the roots of the distaste? I always knew that France thinks we are brutes and we think that they are a bunch of whiney, effeminate, ineffectual, inept, unimportant snobbish brats …but didn’t know there was anything between France and UK.
Quote
“Had we REALLY tried we would have thrashed you long before the french joined in ”
Unlikely…but if it did occur that way…centuries later two great warriors known as Dargon and Wolfman would of arisen and kicked your sorry butts out of our land
Quote
“I can't wait for Dargon's reaction to this! ”
I don’t know enough about military campaigns to even feign an intelligent contribution
Quote
“yes hard as it may seem some of you did fight WITH the british, you didn't ALL hate us).”
What do you mean “hate us”…we were/are you We just decided time for daddy to let us drive our own car
Quote
“And it had little to do with troops actually, the empire was barely under threat until the japanese and germans threatened it during WWII. Post WWII we gave the empire up largely because
A: America refused us the marshall plan until we did so, whereas NO other european nation had this imposed on them
B: Politically it was madness to claim to be democratic and hold an empire
C: Political will in the nations we controlled was firmly against being part of the empire and for the 1st time most of them could survive the transition to independence”
That is interesting…I have always pondered how big empires faded or fell. I just wonder if the USA will be the same. My guess is it won’t be unless we crumble from within given that the majority of nations are not imperialistic any longer.
|
|
|
|
