Guest sillybear2 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) Erm. The Gulf War in 1990. When whacko Hussein invaded Kuwait.France,Britain,US responded. 3 nuclear powers. Did he give a t0ss about that ? Actually he did, when he took those westerners hostage to use as human shields he soon changed his mind when we informed him we had a nuclear sub on his doorstep and any funny business, including the use of chemical weapons on our tropps, would be responded to disproportionately. Deterrence is just that, you cannot measure its value as such because you cannot prove a negative, if you have no defenses it attracts trouble as others know they can just walk all over you, people and countries don't even try when they know you're armed up to the teeth and happy to use them. Sad but true, that's how the game works. Edited July 4, 2009 by sillybear2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Nuclear armageddon is highly unlikely, but a single nuclear explosion on a highly populated area occuring again at some point in the next 100 years? I'll let you guess what the Daily Mail and Express would have to say about such an occurrence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 If another major attack occurs (nuclear or otherwise), it will not be accountable... That's why the 9/11 response was so brutal, an exercise in showing exactly what to expect in the case of anything like that ever happening again. A "terrorist threat", as opposed to an identifiable "state threat" is much more difficult. You can't just chuck nukes around to fix things.. and that's something the nuclear powers hate. What do you do when the terrorists are home grown as in 7/7? Nothing it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonewer Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 What do you do when the terrorists are home grown as in 7/7? Nothing it seems. The military is not an appropriate response to internal security threats. Thats what MI5 and SO15 are for. Ask Gerry Adams. He loves the British Army. Specially the Paras. Best thing that ever happened to the IRA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'd much rather see Britain cancel its EU 'subscription' of 65 billion and spend that on defense. That would create jobs and give people a sense of pride in the forces again. With America's dominance sliding I think boosting defense spending would be wise - as long as its not spent on pointless wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 The ultimate terror weapon is the nuke, and as long as we have a few, we will have a place at the big table. personally I'd disagree with that statement. yes it makes a nice big bang and pretty cloud that everyone can see,but genetic weapons are by far the ultimate terror device......all of a sudden your kindered just drop dead for no immediately apparent reason. even for a country the size of china or india,with 1.5BN people,they would full well know that if they dropped a nuke on you and killed 20 or 30 million....they could have their entire species wiped out,in silent but deadly fashion. makes al quaeda look like small fry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 If another major attack occurs (nuclear or otherwise), it will not be accountable... That's why the 9/11 response was so brutal, I would hardly call the response to 9/11 brutal. it was pretty measured considering the capability of the US. (it's a nice little sideline for the arms dealers to flog a few more bullets and test-drive a couple of new toys) Should we have another more sever assault,then I think the response may well be wholly disproportionate,and then people will start to know the meaning of the word "brutal" ..to put things in perspective,I'm talking about the obliteration of more human lives in 1 day,than in both previous world wars combined. it's going to shock a lot of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 The US can no longer afford to be the US! Personally i think when the Chinese figure out we cant pay our dues, we cant afford NOT to be a mini US. Our military is the only thing standing between us and oriental enslavement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) The US can no longer afford to be the US!Personally i think when the Chinese figure out we cant pay our dues, we cant afford NOT to be a mini US. Our military is the only thing standing between us and oriental enslavement. it's not just china,russia and germany have been hoarding all the gold and buying up all the tangible goods. twas part of the plan from a long time back. economic warfare is just as valid a tactic as any military battlefield. just watch....gordon has helpfully turned our economy into a one-trick pony dependent upon financial services from the city of london to operate. ....watch what happens when the city of london is rendered unable to function. civil disorder will be just the ruse needed for the EU to muster some "peacekeeping" troops to invade. as I said before,debts do not necessarily have to be repaid with money.Human collateral will do quite nicely. kind of sideskirts EU minimum-wage regulations too. the borrower is servant to the lender,and we've been subjected to hair-of-the-dog-o-nomics Edited July 4, 2009 by oracle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroSumGame Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Actually he did, when he took those westerners hostage to use as human shields he soon changed his mind when we informed him we had a nuclear sub on his doorstep and any funny business, including the use of chemical weapons on our tropps, would be responded to disproportionately.Deterrence is just that, you cannot measure its value as such because you cannot prove a negative, if you have no defenses it attracts trouble as others know they can just walk all over you, people and countries don't even try when they know you're armed up to the teeth and happy to use them. Sad but true, that's how the game works. Not sure I agree with your account. He did release the hostages : but it sure as hell didn't stop him fighting the war. The allies won without nuclear warfare, but IIRC there were account of the vets suffering from hardened Uranium fallout. Anyway your deterrence hypothesis is about to be tested. Old tortoise-head in North Korea seems to be firing off some fireworks over Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc. He don't seem much frightened of the nuclear powers - and they don't seem likely to invade either (yet). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/0...s-scud-missiles US warns defiant North Korea after reports of Scud missiles test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Nose Bear Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Do you not see the problem here? The money has run out.Get used to it. End of empire. What money would that be then? The money that has run out is 'credit' (i.e. wealth that never existed in the first place), there's still the same amount, if not more, folding stuff around. Popular misconception of late, but I can assure you money has NOT run out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Nose Bear Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Agreed. I'd rather cut all social security and abolish the NHS than cut trident. At the end of the day, despite the tensions, the period where we have had nuclear weapons has been one of the most stable and prosperous on record.In fact if paying state pensions and providing health care is going to be the issue it is, I suggest we also bolster the armed forces. Let's send the baby-boomers out to Afghanistan to take some bullets. They are the generation that has screwed the next generation, whilst living the high life after their elders made such big sacrifices. I personally have more respect of an old soldier in their late 70 or 80s or more than for a fat bloated babyboomer who has financially raped the current generations X and Y. Why don't volunteer to lead from the front? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.