Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Robben #20 (U1145)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 6 minutes ago
Tell that to Japan mate.
Especially now that it is common knowledge that Japan would have surrendered without a nuclear strike against it.
-----------------------------------------
It's not common knowledge at all. In fact i'd say it was more 'common' knowledge that if the US hadn't nuked them that Japan would have sacrificed huge numbers of their own people to stop the US invasion that was due to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IF it isn't common knowledge then it' criminal and should be taught.
Japan were totally defeated militarily, this is a fact.
America WITHOUT warning launched these nukes, surly a threat of nuclear would have surfaced even if Japan were militarily capable. Which they were not.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
The people of Japan were used as guinea pigs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The website you have linked to was blocked by my works web blocker due to 'intolerance & hate.' Seems like a trustworthy source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe your work place are using American made software?
Here are a million more links.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=japan+would+have+surrendered+anyway
They would have surrendered, only a fool would think otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what software it uses as a web blocker. It bans links to alcohol and gambling, so it could be Islamic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then I wouldn't see why it would block something condemning American actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps not all of Islam is anti-America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guarantee it's not anti American.
I can also guarantee that it is majorly anti-American government.
Big difference.
Truman later said he wholly regretted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but that was purely with hindsight.
I guarantee any country in the world would have made the same choice America did faced with the same circumstances. It's just glib to claim otherwise.
I can't believe people can find justification in nuclear weapons. They are made to destroy civilians, innocent people not armies.
-----------------------------------------
Maybe that's what is needed. Before nuclear weapons there were two world wars where unimaginable amounts of people were killed. As soon as nuclear weapons were invented we've seen no wars anywhere near the numbers of the first two world wars.
I'm not happy there's nuclear weapons on the planet. It's scary and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a post-apocalyptic wasteland (or Liverpool as it's know to some people) but the chances of myself or my kids going to fight in some huge world war has been made a lot less likely by the presence of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Robben #20 (U1145)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 6 minutes ago
Tell that to Japan mate.
Especially now that it is common knowledge that Japan would have surrendered without a nuclear strike against it.
-----------------------------------------
It's not common knowledge at all. In fact i'd say it was more 'common' knowledge that if the US hadn't nuked them that Japan would have sacrificed huge numbers of their own people to stop the US invasion that was due to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IF it isn't common knowledge then it' criminal and should be taught.
Japan were totally defeated militarily, this is a fact.
America WITHOUT warning launched these nukes, surly a threat of nuclear would have surfaced even if Japan were militarily capable. Which they were not.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
The people of Japan were used as guinea pigs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The website you have linked to was blocked by my works web blocker due to 'intolerance & hate.' Seems like a trustworthy source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe your work place are using American made software?
Here are a million more links.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=japan+would+have+surrendered+anyway
They would have surrendered, only a fool would think otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah theyd have surreneddd.... aftee deck loads nore people died, the Japanese wouldnt just bend over.
go put your tin foil hat away son
I have lived in Pakistan for a while....and still have some friends back there.
The army there is too well entrenched to allow a takeover by 'Taliban' - albeit you can't know for sure how many lunatics are there in their army.
Kung Fu Cantona
You're missing the point. Japan's military might have been on it's knees but Japan wouldn't surrender. The US were going to launch a land invasion but couldn't do so if the entire Japanese nation were going to use men women and children to stop the invasion from happening which would have cost the US if they had invaded.
Google 'Operation Downfall'.
The US predicted that invading Japan would have cost 267,000 US lives. Just invading Iwo Jima alone killed 18,000 Americans.
Without unconditional surrender the US had to end the war as quickly and with as little death to themselves as possible.
The Americans had to develop a strategy of sidestepping defended islands in the pacific as their losses were so heavy when trying to take them. The only time they managed to take each island was when the Japanese indulged their bonkers fondness for suicidal counter attacks.
Can you imagine going though that process for months on the mainland?
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Robben #20 (U1145)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 6 minutes ago
Tell that to Japan mate.
Especially now that it is common knowledge that Japan would have surrendered without a nuclear strike against it.
-----------------------------------------
It's not common knowledge at all. In fact i'd say it was more 'common' knowledge that if the US hadn't nuked them that Japan would have sacrificed huge numbers of their own people to stop the US invasion that was due to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IF it isn't common knowledge then it' criminal and should be taught.
Japan were totally defeated militarily, this is a fact.
America WITHOUT warning launched these nukes, surly a threat of nuclear would have surfaced even if Japan were militarily capable. Which they were not.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
The people of Japan were used as guinea pigs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The website you have linked to was blocked by my works web blocker due to 'intolerance & hate.' Seems like a trustworthy source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe your work place are using American made software?
Here are a million more links.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=japan+would+have+surrendered+anyway
They would have surrendered, only a fool would think otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what software it uses as a web blocker. It bans links to alcohol and gambling, so it could be Islamic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then I wouldn't see why it would block something condemning American actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps not all of Islam is anti-America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guarantee it's not anti American.
I can also guarantee that it is majorly anti-American government.
Big difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand your second line. Who is a majorly anti-American government?
Is this to do with the link that was blocked due to 'intolerance and hate?'
If the link isn't anti-American, why did you claim is was only blocked due to it being American software that my company used?
There will be no nuclear war. Putin may be crazy but his generals are certainly not. He will be overthrown if this was even discussed.
The taliban also do not control any large areas in Pakistan. The whole dirty bomb thing was used to terrorise people during the bogus war in Iraq.
Nukes are very complex and you cannot just operate one or even gain access to one. I was worried with the fall of the USSR, that former states would sell their weapons but they did not.
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt, I do not think we will see another war. Sick and tired of our soldiers being sent to die in pointless conflicts so defence companies make money
There are potential flashpoints and with Uncle Sam moving to counter rising Chinese influence through the 'pivot to asia' strategy things will become messier. We can potentially have another cold war with China and Russia plus the likes of Iran on one side with the Nato and India/Australia/S.Korea/Japan on the other
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
Robb
Agree but the ideals spouted by the Neo Cons and the arsenal they would have at their disposal, is certainly something the world should be very concerned about.
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 1 minute ago
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only country on the planet to use a nuke is the USA.
China does not need to use a nuke, they own the planet, the russians know what would happen if they did and India and Pakistan would not use nukes, too close to each other. Self preservation and al lthat jazz
I would like to believe as a species we are evolving to the point when arguments do not need to be sorted out by war.
It is refreshing to see the publics views with regards to war.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
Robb
Agree but the ideals spouted by the Neo Cons and the arsenal they would have at their disposal, is certainly something the world should be very concerned about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree with that and don't get me wrong, i'm far from a fan of the right wing American ideals but I think people can get lazy and solely blame them when there are other people out there who have some awful ideals too.
Us people are just the pawns in the battle between the bad ideals on all sides.
comment by Utopian (U18745)
posted 5 minutes ago
There are potential flashpoints and with Uncle Sam moving to counter rising Chinese influence through the 'pivot to asia' strategy things will become messier. We can potentially have another cold war with China and Russia plus the likes of Iran on one side with the Nato and India/Australia/S.Korea/Japan on the other
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Sam is owned by China, all the posturing is just that, posturing. If Uncle Sam is terrified of North Korea, what makes you think it would mess with China
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 2 minutes ago
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pak and India have never been close to a nuclear war. They might hate each other but its never got to nuclear. Having the nukes is a ego thing.
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 1 minute ago
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only country on the planet to use a nuke is the USA.
China does not need to use a nuke, they own the planet, the russians know what would happen if they did and India and Pakistan would not use nukes, too close to each other. Self preservation and al lthat jazz
I would like to believe as a species we are evolving to the point when arguments do not need to be sorted out by war.
It is refreshing to see the publics views with regards to war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, but surely you can accept that times are changing and the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist threat is there now in a way it wasn't 20-30 years ago and there is a very real threat they may one day get their hands on nuclear weapons with the Middle East being the way it is and with Pakistan being heavily threatened by the Taliban.
With a bunch of people who really don't fear M.A.D getting their hands on nukes it is likely that one day a nuke will be used in anger by people who couldn't justify the use of one in the way the US could in WW2.
humans are their core enjoy violence
Pak and India have never been close to a nuclear war. They might hate each other but its never got to nuclear. Having the nukes is a ego thing.
--------------------------------------------------
It very nearly happened in 2001.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
robb do you go to anti illuminati conventions?
What rising Islamic fundamentalist threat? You are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.
Where will they get the nukes from? The only country in the ME with nukes is Israel, no one else. You think the Israelis will let people get their hands on a nuke?
If we want to stop the alleged rising islamic extremist (not fundamentalist, fundamentalist is a wrong term), it is very simple.
Stop meddling in their affairs
comment by (Kash) Mario Balle Balle Balotelli - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 2 minutes ago
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pak and India have never been close to a nuclear war. They might hate each other but its never got to nuclear. Having the nukes is a ego thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point it is an ego thing and also the point made earlier (MUDD?) about them being to close together means they would never risk a nuclear strike against each other.
To reiterate earlier points regarding Japans surrender. They would not have surrendered until the country had been bombed back to the stone age.
These guys saw surrender as shameful hence their appaling treatment of POW`s who did surrender.
They charge machine gun nests with swords.
You only have to look at the meagre amount of prosoners taken in places such as Okinawa and Iwo Jima to confirm this.
Im not anti Japanese by the way. I am just making a point.
Good article Robb <thumbsup>
Nuclear War
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 3/2/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/2/15
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Robben #20 (U1145)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 6 minutes ago
Tell that to Japan mate.
Especially now that it is common knowledge that Japan would have surrendered without a nuclear strike against it.
-----------------------------------------
It's not common knowledge at all. In fact i'd say it was more 'common' knowledge that if the US hadn't nuked them that Japan would have sacrificed huge numbers of their own people to stop the US invasion that was due to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IF it isn't common knowledge then it' criminal and should be taught.
Japan were totally defeated militarily, this is a fact.
America WITHOUT warning launched these nukes, surly a threat of nuclear would have surfaced even if Japan were militarily capable. Which they were not.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
The people of Japan were used as guinea pigs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The website you have linked to was blocked by my works web blocker due to 'intolerance & hate.' Seems like a trustworthy source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe your work place are using American made software?
Here are a million more links.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=japan+would+have+surrendered+anyway
They would have surrendered, only a fool would think otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what software it uses as a web blocker. It bans links to alcohol and gambling, so it could be Islamic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then I wouldn't see why it would block something condemning American actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps not all of Islam is anti-America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guarantee it's not anti American.
I can also guarantee that it is majorly anti-American government.
Big difference.
posted on 3/2/15
Truman later said he wholly regretted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but that was purely with hindsight.
I guarantee any country in the world would have made the same choice America did faced with the same circumstances. It's just glib to claim otherwise.
posted on 3/2/15
I can't believe people can find justification in nuclear weapons. They are made to destroy civilians, innocent people not armies.
-----------------------------------------
Maybe that's what is needed. Before nuclear weapons there were two world wars where unimaginable amounts of people were killed. As soon as nuclear weapons were invented we've seen no wars anywhere near the numbers of the first two world wars.
I'm not happy there's nuclear weapons on the planet. It's scary and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a post-apocalyptic wasteland (or Liverpool as it's know to some people) but the chances of myself or my kids going to fight in some huge world war has been made a lot less likely by the presence of Mutually Assured Destruction.
posted on 3/2/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/2/15
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Robben #20 (U1145)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 6 minutes ago
Tell that to Japan mate.
Especially now that it is common knowledge that Japan would have surrendered without a nuclear strike against it.
-----------------------------------------
It's not common knowledge at all. In fact i'd say it was more 'common' knowledge that if the US hadn't nuked them that Japan would have sacrificed huge numbers of their own people to stop the US invasion that was due to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IF it isn't common knowledge then it' criminal and should be taught.
Japan were totally defeated militarily, this is a fact.
America WITHOUT warning launched these nukes, surly a threat of nuclear would have surfaced even if Japan were militarily capable. Which they were not.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
The people of Japan were used as guinea pigs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The website you have linked to was blocked by my works web blocker due to 'intolerance & hate.' Seems like a trustworthy source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe your work place are using American made software?
Here are a million more links.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=japan+would+have+surrendered+anyway
They would have surrendered, only a fool would think otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah theyd have surreneddd.... aftee deck loads nore people died, the Japanese wouldnt just bend over.
go put your tin foil hat away son
posted on 3/2/15
I have lived in Pakistan for a while....and still have some friends back there.
The army there is too well entrenched to allow a takeover by 'Taliban' - albeit you can't know for sure how many lunatics are there in their army.
posted on 3/2/15
Kung Fu Cantona
You're missing the point. Japan's military might have been on it's knees but Japan wouldn't surrender. The US were going to launch a land invasion but couldn't do so if the entire Japanese nation were going to use men women and children to stop the invasion from happening which would have cost the US if they had invaded.
Google 'Operation Downfall'.
The US predicted that invading Japan would have cost 267,000 US lives. Just invading Iwo Jima alone killed 18,000 Americans.
Without unconditional surrender the US had to end the war as quickly and with as little death to themselves as possible.
posted on 3/2/15
The Americans had to develop a strategy of sidestepping defended islands in the pacific as their losses were so heavy when trying to take them. The only time they managed to take each island was when the Japanese indulged their bonkers fondness for suicidal counter attacks.
Can you imagine going though that process for months on the mainland?
posted on 3/2/15
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Robben #20 (U1145)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 6 minutes ago
Tell that to Japan mate.
Especially now that it is common knowledge that Japan would have surrendered without a nuclear strike against it.
-----------------------------------------
It's not common knowledge at all. In fact i'd say it was more 'common' knowledge that if the US hadn't nuked them that Japan would have sacrificed huge numbers of their own people to stop the US invasion that was due to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IF it isn't common knowledge then it' criminal and should be taught.
Japan were totally defeated militarily, this is a fact.
America WITHOUT warning launched these nukes, surly a threat of nuclear would have surfaced even if Japan were militarily capable. Which they were not.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
The people of Japan were used as guinea pigs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The website you have linked to was blocked by my works web blocker due to 'intolerance & hate.' Seems like a trustworthy source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe your work place are using American made software?
Here are a million more links.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=japan+would+have+surrendered+anyway
They would have surrendered, only a fool would think otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what software it uses as a web blocker. It bans links to alcohol and gambling, so it could be Islamic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then I wouldn't see why it would block something condemning American actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps not all of Islam is anti-America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guarantee it's not anti American.
I can also guarantee that it is majorly anti-American government.
Big difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand your second line. Who is a majorly anti-American government?
Is this to do with the link that was blocked due to 'intolerance and hate?'
If the link isn't anti-American, why did you claim is was only blocked due to it being American software that my company used?
posted on 3/2/15
There will be no nuclear war. Putin may be crazy but his generals are certainly not. He will be overthrown if this was even discussed.
The taliban also do not control any large areas in Pakistan. The whole dirty bomb thing was used to terrorise people during the bogus war in Iraq.
Nukes are very complex and you cannot just operate one or even gain access to one. I was worried with the fall of the USSR, that former states would sell their weapons but they did not.
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt, I do not think we will see another war. Sick and tired of our soldiers being sent to die in pointless conflicts so defence companies make money
posted on 3/2/15
There are potential flashpoints and with Uncle Sam moving to counter rising Chinese influence through the 'pivot to asia' strategy things will become messier. We can potentially have another cold war with China and Russia plus the likes of Iran on one side with the Nato and India/Australia/S.Korea/Japan on the other
posted on 3/2/15
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
posted on 3/2/15
Robb
Agree but the ideals spouted by the Neo Cons and the arsenal they would have at their disposal, is certainly something the world should be very concerned about.
posted on 3/2/15
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 1 minute ago
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only country on the planet to use a nuke is the USA.
China does not need to use a nuke, they own the planet, the russians know what would happen if they did and India and Pakistan would not use nukes, too close to each other. Self preservation and al lthat jazz
I would like to believe as a species we are evolving to the point when arguments do not need to be sorted out by war.
It is refreshing to see the publics views with regards to war.
posted on 3/2/15
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
Robb
Agree but the ideals spouted by the Neo Cons and the arsenal they would have at their disposal, is certainly something the world should be very concerned about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree with that and don't get me wrong, i'm far from a fan of the right wing American ideals but I think people can get lazy and solely blame them when there are other people out there who have some awful ideals too.
Us people are just the pawns in the battle between the bad ideals on all sides.
posted on 3/2/15
comment by Utopian (U18745)
posted 5 minutes ago
There are potential flashpoints and with Uncle Sam moving to counter rising Chinese influence through the 'pivot to asia' strategy things will become messier. We can potentially have another cold war with China and Russia plus the likes of Iran on one side with the Nato and India/Australia/S.Korea/Japan on the other
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Sam is owned by China, all the posturing is just that, posturing. If Uncle Sam is terrified of North Korea, what makes you think it would mess with China
posted on 3/2/15
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 2 minutes ago
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pak and India have never been close to a nuclear war. They might hate each other but its never got to nuclear. Having the nukes is a ego thing.
posted on 3/2/15
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 1 minute ago
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only country on the planet to use a nuke is the USA.
China does not need to use a nuke, they own the planet, the russians know what would happen if they did and India and Pakistan would not use nukes, too close to each other. Self preservation and al lthat jazz
I would like to believe as a species we are evolving to the point when arguments do not need to be sorted out by war.
It is refreshing to see the publics views with regards to war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, but surely you can accept that times are changing and the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist threat is there now in a way it wasn't 20-30 years ago and there is a very real threat they may one day get their hands on nuclear weapons with the Middle East being the way it is and with Pakistan being heavily threatened by the Taliban.
With a bunch of people who really don't fear M.A.D getting their hands on nukes it is likely that one day a nuke will be used in anger by people who couldn't justify the use of one in the way the US could in WW2.
posted on 3/2/15
humans are their core enjoy violence
posted on 3/2/15
Pak and India have never been close to a nuclear war. They might hate each other but its never got to nuclear. Having the nukes is a ego thing.
--------------------------------------------------
It very nearly happened in 2001.
posted on 3/2/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/2/15
robb do you go to anti illuminati conventions?
posted on 3/2/15
What rising Islamic fundamentalist threat? You are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.
Where will they get the nukes from? The only country in the ME with nukes is Israel, no one else. You think the Israelis will let people get their hands on a nuke?
If we want to stop the alleged rising islamic extremist (not fundamentalist, fundamentalist is a wrong term), it is very simple.
Stop meddling in their affairs
posted on 3/2/15
comment by (Kash) Mario Balle Balle Balotelli - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Robb - My good man. (U19350)
posted 2 minutes ago
Provided we keep neo cons away from govt,
------------------------------------------
It's not always about America. Pakistan and India were moments away from nuclear war as were China and Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pak and India have never been close to a nuclear war. They might hate each other but its never got to nuclear. Having the nukes is a ego thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point it is an ego thing and also the point made earlier (MUDD?) about them being to close together means they would never risk a nuclear strike against each other.
To reiterate earlier points regarding Japans surrender. They would not have surrendered until the country had been bombed back to the stone age.
These guys saw surrender as shameful hence their appaling treatment of POW`s who did surrender.
They charge machine gun nests with swords.
You only have to look at the meagre amount of prosoners taken in places such as Okinawa and Iwo Jima to confirm this.
Im not anti Japanese by the way. I am just making a point.
Good article Robb <thumbsup>
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8