Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,768,892 times
Reputation: 7185
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I have no problem with a nuclear readiness to defend America. I have a huge problem with a nuclear readiness to defend America's interests. That goes for conventional warfare, too, not just nuclear.
When has nuclear armament EVER been used to defend American interest? Unless you are talking about America's interest in keeping 1,000,000 soldiers and marines alive in 1945?
When has nuclear armament EVER been used to defend American interest? Unless you are talking about America's interest in keeping 1,000,000 soldiers and marines alive in 1945?
Nuclear power was what brought the cold war to an end.....It was a wait it out situation where they ran out of time, effort, money.
When has nuclear armament EVER been used to defend American interest? ?
It hasn't been. Yet. Are our troops currently deployed to defend America, or America's interests?
In 1945, we used a million troops, and nuclear weapons to defend them, against an enemy that had not put a single boot on the ground on this continent, and probably couldn't have. And would have been repelled quickly and easily if they had. We were defending our interest, and our interest was dominating both sides of the Pacific ourselves, and that is the interest that the A-bomb was used to defend.
Is it your contention that if we had not used the A-bomb, and had brought those million troops home to defend our own shores, that the Japanese could have and would have penetrated our defense and successfully have won the war on our shores and occupied America?
A lot of people forget how much of our history over the last 60 years has been involved in war and it was all over communism and the cold war. The Korean war was due to the cold war, Vietnam, the space race, Berlin wall....ect. The above site has some good facts.....
Basically the US used less of it's GDP developing as many nuclear weapons as possible to the point where it was just a huge standoff.....waiting for the first one to run out of money/drive. We won they fell and with it much of communism.
This is why it's so critical people understand no one wants wars but the people up top get to see some serious info regarding that they can't really share and then have to come out and sale a war. It's always in our best interest some just refuse to look at it...not pointing fingers just reminding people war isn't new as long as man is around there will be wars.
Do you play chess? Here is how you win at chess. You get a one-man advantage, and then start exchanging pieces, one-for-one, until you have two and your opponent has one. Then you win.
That is how we won the cold war. We had more money than the USSR, so we started exchanging pieces, until we still had money to buy weapons, and they didn't.
So, how do you like being pawns in this game that the big people play, to be exchanged one at a time until one Big Person wears down the other one.
If you are a Yes voter, please give your reason why. It's good to hear all sides of the issue.
Quote:
we should realize that we shouldn't expect other countries not to develop weapons simply because we feel they are evil. We are seen as evil to other countries based upon our actions and we posess weapons of mass destruction."
The US has no right to tell another nation not to develop weapons when we have them
Then why don't we just treat everybody with friendship and hospitality and dignity, the way Norway and New Zealand and Paraguay do? Instead of constantly striving above all to make fools of ourselves and either enemies or lapdogs of everybody else? And let them like us or not, according to their shifting whims. If Al Qaeda hates freedom, why don't they bomb Norway?
you cant be serious to propose a nation being inferior because they have not won a gold medal lol in shotput lol
The point was that while Pakistan has nuclear weapons, it is not threat to the US because Pakistan has no means to deliver their nuclear weapons, (unless they can somehow shot-put a 0.1 kt nuke to the US).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
