Gibber Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 ^Because of the coalition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunnered Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 ^^Coalition?? Have I missed the election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 There will always be a little Hitler who wants to make the rest of the worldto conform to his control. Osam bin liner comes to mindAnyone who straps semtex to little girls with learning difficultiesAnd there is always some one who would build a Nuk of one kind or another just for moneySo unless you can get rid of human greed the world is stuck with them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 There will always be a little Hitler who wants to make the rest of the worldto conform to his control. Osam bin liner comes to mindI don't know how closely you follow the news, but in case you didn't know, Osama Bin Ladin attacked the USA on 11th September 2001, despite that country's enormous nuclear arsenal. There was quite a fuss about it at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted March 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 There will always be a little Hitler who wants to make the rest of the worldto conform to his control. Osam bin liner comes to mindI don't know how closely you follow the news, but in case you didn't know, Osama Bin Ladin attacked the USA on 11th September 2001, despite that country's enormous nuclear arsenal. There was quite a fuss about it at the time. Nukes don't necessarily deter terrorists because terrorists don't have a return address. But then again, terrorism from 1960's in the USA has killed less people than those who die in bathtub related incidents [John Mueller, CATO Institute], so we really exaggerate it and it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Nukes don't necessarily deter terrorists because terrorists don't have a return address.They didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m.stewart Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Oh hi James Dad hereMams gone away on a school trip or something for 10 days Fancy a run up to Lerwick to keep me companyBit boring in the hoose on me own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Oh hi James Dad hereMams gone away on a school trip or something for 10 days Fancy a run up to Lerwick to keep me companyBit boring in the hoose on me own Interesting viewpoint but I'm not convinced unilateral disarmament is truly feasible after the fall of the Soviet Union but you make a strong case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lapse Rate Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 ^^^^^^ Ha ha, brilliant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted March 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nukes don't necessarily deter terrorists because terrorists don't have a return address.They didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, either.It doesn't prevent minor conflicts: Look at pakistan and india. It prevents large scale conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 It prevents large scale conflict.How do you define "large scale" ? The Vietnam War lasted 17 years, and cost the lives of 3 to 4 million Vietnamese, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 U.S. soldiers (thank you, Wikipedia!). Obviously, neither the NVA, nor the Viet Cong, were deterred by the USA's nuclear arsenal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bug Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 The use of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly helped bring one large conflict to a timely end. Was their use really necessary? It would certainly seem so given that since there have only been smaller conflicts!Nukes don't necessarily deter terrorists because terrorists don't have a return address.They didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, either.It doesn't prevent minor conflicts: Look at pakistan and india. It prevents large scale conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted March 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 It prevents large scale conflict.How do you define "large scale" ? The Vietnam War lasted 17 years, and cost the lives of 3 to 4 million Vietnamese, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 U.S. soldiers (thank you, Wikipedia!). Obviously, neither the NVA, nor the Viet Cong, were deterred by the USA's nuclear arsenal. Oops, I should have stated large scale conflict between nuclear weapon possessing states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bug Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Given that the NVA and the "reds" were primarily supported by the USSR (who had a developed nuclear arsenal at that time) but chose not to deploy them Evil Is point is very valid. Proliferation was probably the fear.1945 was all one sided and 2-300 thousand people were annihalated atomically. The NVA didn't need nuclear because they were fighting at home. They couldn't have used nuclear missiles at home for a paltry 200 thousand Americans without untold destruction of their homeland and the USSR weren't "officially" in the war so they couldn't nuke the USA using intercontinental missiles. A no win situation from a nuclear standpoint. A costly non-nuclear conlict ensued. It prevents large scale conflict.How do you define "large scale" ? The Vietnam War lasted 17 years, and cost the lives of 3 to 4 million Vietnamese, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 U.S. soldiers (thank you, Wikipedia!). Obviously, neither the NVA, nor the Viet Cong, were deterred by the USA's nuclear arsenal. Oops, I should have stated large scale conflict between nuclear weapon possessing states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicky Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Saw in the news recently France were proposing a deterrent sharing scheme, in which Britain and France shared the number or nuclear weapons meaning less costs for both but no reduction in the overall threat to potential agressors 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.