billvon 2,434 #26 April 13, 2005 >Yeah, imagine if Mike had given up. Mike fought for the right to give up on her. He got it. >Imagine if Washington had given up. Imagine if Robert E Lee hadn't. We'd be missing part of our country now. Choose your battles wisely lest you win the battle but lose the war. >Quitters never win, and the best you can do at times is go down with a fight. And the best you can do at times is know when to give up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #27 April 13, 2005 QuoteYou got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, Know when to walk away and know when to run. You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table. There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #28 April 13, 2005 Quote>Yeah, imagine if Mike had given up. Mike fought for the right to give up on her. He got it. Mike fought to keep her wishes. Quote>Imagine if Washington had given up. Imagine if Robert E Lee hadn't. We'd be missing part of our country now. Choose your battles wisely lest you win the battle but lose the war. We were missing part of our country already. Quote>Quitters never win, and the best you can do at times is go down with a fight. And the best you can do at times is know when to give up. If you like giving up feel free."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #29 April 13, 2005 >Mike fought to keep her wishes. Which was to give up. And there's no problem with that. >If you like giving up feel free. I do all the time. Like now! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #30 April 13, 2005 you should have used them on iraq, saddam had WMD didn't he he was gonna use them on you wasn't he. lies just like your defence policies. nuclear warfare is stupid. noone wins. everybody loses incuding those not involved. get rid of them you warmongers. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #31 April 13, 2005 Quotenuclear warfare is stupid. noone wins. everybody loses incuding those not involved. get rid of them you warmongers. If everyone got rid of them I'd gladly do it...But as soon as we got rid of them, someone would use theirs. Thats the cold hard facts of the matter...Anything else is living in a daydream."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #32 April 13, 2005 Quoteget rid of them you warmongers. Hey Skyrad - Now you're a warmonger - prepare for the truck loads of money to come in any second now, hold on here they come ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #33 April 13, 2005 >If everyone got rid of them I'd gladly do it...But as soon as we got >rid of them, someone would use theirs. I agree there - _if_ we did not have a similar deterrent ready to go. Keeping a strong military to regularly invade other countries is a misuse of the military, but it does not negate the need to keep a strong military to defend our country. We ignore that part a lot because we often use our military for other things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #34 April 13, 2005 Yeh...Go Denzil! Woohoo!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 April 13, 2005 Quote>I see you would rather just give up... Attitudes like this led to a recent battle that kept a feeding tube in a woman for 15 years. Sometimes the battle can be won even though the war is lost, and often those battles are not worth fighting. But that attitude didn't cause her to need the feeding tube in the first place. A never-use doctrine for nuclear arms is moronic- it greatly reduces their deterrent value. And since it's nearly wholely a defensive weapon, you can't afford that loss. Rhys- you may be far enough out of the way to not need a nuclear shield very much, but you certainly benefit from it. Just as Japan does. It can stick to a Greenpeace platform while it squabbles with China over natural gas fields because it knows it has the US backing it up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #36 April 13, 2005 LOL Ohh....Muneey!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #37 April 13, 2005 QuotePRE-EMPTIVE? No. Nukes are terrible for offensive operations. A nukes best use is as a deterrent. But if I saw them being launched against us, I would strike back with equal force. I'm with you Ron. I dont think any nation is stupid enough to use nukes for offensive opperations. Even Tiny Kim. How about if a terrorist group got a hold of a nuke and used it. What would be the appropriate response. If AQ used one we couldn't nuke every country that has an AQ cell in it or links to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #38 April 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhy bother? You are dead anyway? Isee you would rather just give up... If even one bomb is on the way, you have already lost. Everyone loses. What would killing millions of innocent civilians in retaliation of an act put in motion by a handful of people prove? Show the immature and childish behavior of those in power? The world as we know it will come to a hault the next time a nuke is used - no matter who uses it. The world economy will collapse with the loss of one of the major powers/suppliers in the world. Starvation will spread, disease will spread, crops will rot, livestock will be unfit, soil will be useless for generations, long term radiation damage will spread into the next generation and the strength of the populace will decrease. A true leader will do everything in his/her power to prevent the bombs from ever launching. A strong leader will make the choice to save as many as possible and forego stupid nationalistic pride when faced with the end. Nah, screw that. Let's take them all with us and end humanity just to spite the person that pushed the button. Shall we play a game??_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #39 April 14, 2005 Quotenuclear warfare is stupid. noone wins. everybody loses incuding those not involved. get rid of them you warmongers. It saved a hell of a lot of lives when we went after Japan. I guess u forgot that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 April 14, 2005 Quote The world as we know it will come to a hault the next time a nuke is used - no matter who uses it. The world economy will collapse with the loss of one of the major powers/suppliers in the world. Starvation will spread, disease will spread, crops will rot, livestock will be unfit, soil will be useless for generations, long term radiation damage will spread into the next generation and the strength of the populace will decrease. Just a wee bit dramatic, are we? A detonation could result in a tit for tat response, a double tit for tat response, or a uncontrolled escalation. The world would survive the first two. We survived decades of atmospheric testing, Chernobyl, and lots of exploding volcanoes. Any leader who turned the other cheek after a hit would be killed by his own people in short order. What else could you say for someone who let 6 or 7 figures of his people be killed without response? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #41 April 14, 2005 Quote It saved a hell of a lot of lives when we went after Japan. I guess u forgot that. You have to be kidding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #42 April 14, 2005 Doubt it - that's an established rational. Go take a look at some of the commentaries on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. An awful lot of them conclude that more lives would have been lost in a conventional invasion of the Islands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #43 April 14, 2005 QuoteHow about if a terrorist group got a hold of a nuke and used it. What would be the appropriate response. If AQ used one we couldn't nuke every country that has an AQ cell in it or links to them You can't do that. Thats why you must prevent them from getting one."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #44 April 14, 2005 QuoteIf even one bomb is on the way, you have already lost. Everyone loses BS, one bomb is not going to end the world. QuoteWhat would killing millions of innocent civilians in retaliation of an act put in motion by a handful of people prove? Show the immature and childish behavior of those in power? It is reasoning like this that makes it so you will never be a leader. QuoteA true leader will do everything in his/her power to prevent the bombs from ever launching This I agree with. QuoteA strong leader will make the choice to save as many as possible and forego stupid nationalistic pride when faced with the end. This kind of thinking is what teh terrorists want to hear. "See I can attack them and nothing will happen". QuoteNah, screw that. Let's take them all with us and end humanity just to spite the person that pushed the button. I guess you would rather only the US die? QuoteShall we play a game?? The only wining move is not to play....But if the ball is in play, then play ball, don't sit on the bench."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #45 April 14, 2005 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It saved a hell of a lot of lives when we went after Japan. I guess u forgot that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have to be kidding Some estimate that the use of the two nukes SAVED 350-400 thousand people that would have died in a land invasion."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #46 April 14, 2005 ***US policy is to only use nukes if they, or other NBC weapons are used against us, and if NBC weapons are used against us, we will use nukes in response... I support that policy... Not so. The US threatened to use Nukes at the Chosin Resevoir in Korea in 1953. The US also threatened to use Nukes to enforce acceptance of the US terms of peace at Panmunjon, Korea in 1953. Again in 1961 during the Berlin crisis and in 1962 during the Cuban missle crisis. In 1968 to force an end to the Chinese blockade of the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu. The US also offered nuclear wepons to the French in 1954 to use in defence of Dienbienphu. The US also planned to use nukes in Laos at the Mu Gia pass in 1967 in order to destroy the Ho Chi Minh Trail. And again in 1968 at Khe Sanh. Nixon threatened the Hanoi regime in 1969 if they did not accept his terms. He planned to use nukes to escalate the war. Hanoi of course did not accept because they knew that Nixon faced opposition to the war in the US and that if it was known of his plan he would have had a full blown civil war on US soil. It does not stop there up untill the present the US has threatened the use of nukes as a deterrent, ofton unknown to the population. It is only a matter of time untill someone goes through with such threats. Peace through superior firepower"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #47 April 14, 2005 As I mentioned in a subsequent post (to the one you quoted)... the current policy has not always been the policy... it has only been the policy since we swore off the use of chemical weapons... I'm not sure how long the "scope and kind" policy was in place, policy prior to that was classified... current policy and the "scope and kind" policy were not classified because of the deterrent value inherent in an enemy knowing what they will get if they choose certain actions. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kinaa 0 #48 April 14, 2005 With current USA policy, I would not be surprised if one day N.Coreans (or someone) preemptive strike one of USA cities. What a hypocrisy is to ban someone to have weapon that you already have. They have every right to have it. BTW I can't believe that there are humans who even consider using nuclear weapon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #49 April 14, 2005 It is not a matter of us banning them, it is a matter of them having been a party to the NPT where they agreed not to have them. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan are the only countries that were not parties to NPT, NK withdrew in 2003 after never really living up to their commitments. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #50 April 14, 2005 QuoteQuote It saved a hell of a lot of lives when we went after Japan. I guess u forgot that. You have to be kidding If you look at how the Japanese fought American troops while we were island hopping in the south pacific you would realize that the majority of the Japanese mainland population would've faught to the death if we invaded. Look at footage when the Emperor announces Japan's surrender. Ron had the estimates in the low to mid 100ks, others put them close to one million. IMO I think Ron's figures are a bit low. In the end the use of the Atomic Bomb did save hundreds of thousands of lives. I also think you cannot compare the dropping of the Atomic bombs in WWII to a pre-emptive strike today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
