Announcement

**Carver** · April 30, 2003, 13:41

Originally posted by I Am Jeff
For all those who are frightend by the U.S.A., I am very curious why you would be worried. The U.S. will not launch a nuke unless it gets hit. The U.S. has no need to use nukes offensivly. For all of you who say, "They are the only ones who used them, so they will use them again." is an absurd argument.

Past behaviour is an obvious consideration.

There are many reasons why they dropped the bombs on Japan:
1. it saved lives. A land invasion against Japan mainland would have costed more lives then nukes would.
2. More damage would have been done to Japanese infrastructure. Sure the nukes leveled some areas, but before the U.S. would have done a land invasion, they would bomb the whole island to shambles with conventional bombs.

What you, and many others, fail to realize is that the Japanese had already decided to surrender - at least weeks before the Hiroshima bombing. The Emperor had appointed a new prime minister whose main purpose was to negotiate a Japanese surrender.

3. Using the bomb was to show the Soviet Union the power the U.S. had and that they better not mess with the U.S.

A nation that would use a nuclear weapon for the sake of showing off is indeed scary.

A lot of people say that Israel were in dire need they would use them. Personally I do not ever see Israel ever in that situation. They get too much support from the U.S. and that is never going to change. Plus Palistine now has a prime minister and soon looks like it will become a nation. It just does not seem like any nation in the middle east will go full force attack, just these suicide bombers and that is no reason to use nukes.

Don't take Israel's conventional military superiority for granted. US airpower, and thus Israeli airpower, has held a clear advantage for decades - but the playing field is begining to level. The Eurofighter, which is more capable than anything the US has except for the undeployed F-22, could make its way into Arab air forces. Also the Sukhoi Su-35 is at least a match for the F-15 and is superior to the F-16, this also could wind up in Arab hands. Both these planes can be armed with precision guided munitions and very capable long range air to air missles. And on the ground the proliferation of night vision technology and good, low-cost armor is changing things too. Israel could very well find itself losing a conventional war.

**TCO** · April 30, 2003, 13:50

Carver, it is not just about the type of plane. It is about the training of the people flying it. What makes you think the Arabs will suddenly become hot**** pilots after 50 years of being dog**** ones?

And it is really silly when people talk about what might happen with weapons acquisitions in the future. it is typical polytubbie talk by people who have no idea how long it takes for things to move out into the fleet.

Az · April 30, 2003, 13:59

hmm... Nope, don't see any of that happening, Carver. really. Who can that country be? Saudi Arabia is the only one in any such position.

Israel holds superiority on both land, and air.

**Sava** · April 30, 2003, 14:07

Countries I'm worried about with nukes.

1. Pakistan (if fundies take power...

)
2. India (want to follow US example of pre-emption SOOOO BAD it's hurting)
3. North Korea (little kid wants to be part of the game)
4. Russia (not concerned about Russia govt, but rather corrupt elements getting ahold of weapons
5. Israel (conventional war goes bad, well... BOOOM)
6. US/China tied

**Carver** · April 30, 2003, 18:56

Originally posted by GP
Carver, it is not just about the type of plane. It is about the training of the people flying it. What makes you think the Arabs will suddenly become hot**** pilots after 50 years of being dog**** ones?

Because people and institutions (such as air forces) can and do get better over time. Assuming your opponents will not get better can be very dangerous. There are many dedicated professionals in Arab militaries, of course they want to continually improve.

And it is really silly when people talk about what might happen with weapons acquisitions in the future. it is typical polytubbie talk by people who have no idea how long it takes for things to move out into the fleet.

I don't think talking about future acquisitions is silly; regardless of the uncertainties it remains an important and intriguing topic.

**TCO** · April 30, 2003, 20:35

Originally posted by Carver

Because people and institutions (such as air forces) can and do get better over time. Assuming your opponents will not get better can be very dangerous. There are many dedicated professionals in Arab militaries, of course they want to continually improve.

I don't think talking about future acquisitions is silly; regardless of the uncertainties it remains an important and intriguing topic.

1. Arab professionals. BWAHAHAHA. Remember what Moshe Dyan said, "It is easy to look like a great general, when you fight Arabs."

2. You remind me of how stmark or whoever used to talk about how the EU would be better than the US after they added all these weapons. It takes a while to get stuff in the fleet sonny. And don't expect all those programs to make it through. And the Israailis can add better planes as well. Right now they fly F-4's and still wax Arab ass.

**PLATO** · April 30, 2003, 20:37

The Israeli's still Fly F-4's????

**TCO** · April 30, 2003, 21:12

I thought they did.

**Carver** · April 30, 2003, 21:13

Originally posted by GP

1. Arab professionals. BWAHAHAHA. Remember what Moshe Dyan said, "It is easy to look like a great general, when you fight Arabs."

That's an ignorant and untrue comment. I wonder which flag you'll vote for.

2. You remind me of how stmark or whoever used to talk about how the EU would be better than the US after they added all these weapons. It takes a while to get stuff in the fleet sonny. And don't expect all those programs to make it through.

The planes I mentioned already have made it through.

And the Israailis can add better planes as well. Right now they fly F-4's and still wax Arab ass.

The Israelis wouldn't dare take an F-4 into Egyptian, Syrian, Saudi, or pre-war Iraqi airspace without F-15s or F-16s as fighter escort.

Obviously it takes time to make new systems truely operational and time is on the Arabs' side. What I said was don't take Israeli conventional superiority for granted.

**PLATO** · April 30, 2003, 21:22

I guess I had just assummed that they bought F-16's along with just about everybody else. I thought F-4's were pretty archaic by today's standards. Interesting.

**Serb** · April 30, 2003, 21:28

Originally posted by GP
And learn history. I think you can read stuff now. Not like it was 20 years ago.

GULAGs in SU and internment camps for Japanese Americans in USA were aproximately at the same time.

**Serb** · April 30, 2003, 21:30

Originally posted by GP

Go play with your mafioso friends.

I don't have friends from Chicago.

**TCO** · April 30, 2003, 21:57

Originally posted by Serb

GULAGs in SU and internment camps for Japanese Americans in USA were aproximately at the same time.

Tell that to Sakharov and Solzhenitsen

**TCO** · April 30, 2003, 21:59

Originally posted by Carver

The planes I mentioned already have made it through.

Please prove this. They are not in the Arab fleet yet.

**TCO** · April 30, 2003, 22:00

Originally posted by Carver

That's an ignorant and untrue comment. I wonder which flag you'll vote for.

It is true that he said it. And it shows great erudition for me to know it and gig you with it.

Announcement

Which country with nuclear weapons frightens you the most?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment