Are nuke weapons a good thing?

[Spiffor]

If the Yanks had been the only ones with nukes, I really believe they'd have declared war to the evil empire. The country is not adverse to war, especially when it's ideologically motivated.

[Mr. Harley]

Saras - SP:WAW please spell out, I don't know computer games that well - and it looks interesting.

I agree with the invasion of Japan and Cold War analysis. Nukes are still working. Remember the recent India/Packistan border conflict. The Pakistanis declared that if India invaded Pakistan, the Pakistanis would use nukes against the invading forces, on Pakistani soil. The Indian government howled, threatened to escalate if that happened, and did not invade.

Israel probably exists today because of nukes. The problem there is that the existence of those has meant that Israel largely can get away without giving a damn about world opinion, resulting in some major human rights violations in their administration of the conquered territories. Definitely a double-edged sword.

Nukes keep the North Korean government immune from military pressure. It's a shame, as they are a particularly vicious dictatorship. On the other hand, the South Koreans and their other neighbors may find a way to get North Korea to peaceably, over the next half a century, integrate into the Asian economy. Compared to the losses of a military conflict, that might be a good thing, if it does happen.

Plus once terrorists get them, the first use might force a world-wide compact on controlling and limiting WMD’s. Note that the US has avoided those treaties for a variety of reasons, some legit, some stupid. However, the cost of a single nuclear (versus thermonuclear) attack pale in comparison to what will happen if genetically engineered agents, or nanotech weapons, get released. So remember, “Love the bomb.”

[Harovan]

It's called mutual assured destruction for a reason.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Saras - SP:WAW please spell out, I don't know computer games that well - and it looks interesting.

It´s Steel Panthers: World at War.

A tactical Level Computergame, which plays in WW2.
You can Assemble a unit (germans, Japüanese, French, whatever you want, there are units for a lot of countries of this time)
and make either a single battle against another country,
or play a campaign, where your units gain experience with every battle and you can upgrade their equipment with more modern equipment, invented through the course of war.

It also has Equipment available during the post war years, so you can also construct scenarios playing a few years after 1945/46.

An t the best,
it is totally free (at least if you have a flatrate Internet connection [it´s quite large, more than 400 MB, so it is also better if you have a High Speed Connection] )
Here´s the URL of the official Homepage:

http://www.steelpanthersworldatwar.com/

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Lancer


techumseh, we all believe what we choose to believe. I've learned when presented with amazing statements just to enjoy them, wonder at them, and realize that none of it really matters.

Nukes saved the Sovs from US & european aggression.



Okally dokally, thanks for that.

Well, that was a good natured trashing. As always, I'm prepared to back up my assertions.

[Saras]

Originally posted by techumseh


Well, that was a good natured trashing. As always, I'm prepared to back up my assertions.

ASSERTIONS

[Lancer]

"If the Yanks had been the only ones with nukes, I really believe they'd have declared war to the evil empire. The country is not adverse to war, especially when it's ideologically motivated."

Spif, we were the only ones with nukes if you recall. What we did was very un-european. We did nothing! It's easy to see why you would expect an attack as that's the natural path for any european with half a chance it winning.

I'll get back with more responses later. I have to go to work soon. (and turn in my hundred word essay)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Saras


ASSERTIONS

Tecumseh is the new BAM: Backed-up Asserion Man

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lancer
Spif, we were the only ones with nukes if you recall. What we did was very un-european. We did nothing! It's easy to see why you would expect an attack as that's the natural path for any european with half a chance it winning.

Ths US has a history of not waiting for its foes to attack it. Once the Cold war became really hot (when the containment doctrine meant that you had tens of thousands of soldiers killed), the US could have well started an offensive war against its greatest foe, which you perceived as a menace to yourselves as well as a menace for mankind as a whole.

[Lancer]

in your opinion you French person.

The French couldn't turn out a Washington remember, all you got was a Napoleon. So, the French have a revolution against a monarch and end up with a dictator.

:absurd silly troll mode off:

[Impaler[WrG]]

I would like to point out that the Nuking of Japan was a vast incresse in EFFICIENCY not LETHALITY. We had already been sending armadas of a thousand Bombers to Drop Firebombs on whole cities. These Fires are so hot that Asphalte burns and Gale force convection winds rush inward. The moral line between targeting "War Industry" and the wholesale anialition of Civilian populations had been crossed years ago. The Bomb simply made it a lot cheaper and Easier to do. The ICBM just made it faster.


This is one of the reasons I am not as conserned about Muslim Fundamentalism as many people. We in the "civilized" west have killed FAR FAR more people (other westerners too by the way) then Fundamentalist have managed. Now you might say its mearly a matter of resorces but if you look at the wealth their dictators waste you see its realy a matter of political will. The Fundamentalist movment is so marginal it is forced to rely in Suicide attacks, the lowest most desperate kind of attack used ONLY after the battle is truely lost. If Fundamentalism were to actualy become a viable Nuclear threat they would be wiped out like that. Retaliatin is by nature the most excesive when the ofending power is weakest.

[Mr. Harley]

I have only one thing to say - Pashtun/Wahabi revolution in Pakistan. Then you have Fundamentlist Muslim bomb(s) - with non-precision delivery systems. Hopefully it will be targeted at India, not that I have anything against India, but it will either be India, the US, or Israel and I prefer it not be the US for personal reasons, and Israel would launch a whole s**tload of nukes accross much of the Muslim - estimates are they have 50 of the suckers.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lancer


I still agree with you Rufus.

Anyway, I think that the US should have nuked a patch of ocean off of Tokyo. If the Japanese didn't give in, then nuke a city.

Regarding the conventional defense of europe against the Sovs, the US was the nation most dedicated to it. We spent roughly double on defense as a percentage if GDP than most of our european NATO partners we were defending. I never did understand this. It's as if they stuck their heads in the sand and just wished it would go away. Which of course it eventually did. Very dangerous game they were playing though. Plus, the Germans insisting on holding em at the border was just incredible considering the order of battle.

The lack of ground forces was the reason that the US turned tactical nukes over to German control, though it was considered joint control. Nobody believed that the US would use nukes to defend europe, and by so doing bring retaliation down on US cities. Germans with nukes scared the Sovs though, according to my understanding of the times.

The lack of NATO ground forces also made the release of nukes inevitable if the Sovs were to be stopped. In every exercise at the time commanders used nukes as a last resort to avoid losing europe. Still, the europeans refused to put up the $ needed to build the ground force needed to prevent nuke release. Go figure. Yet, in hindsight maybe they were right. The Sovs never came, the nukes did their job. It's all good now.

In 1946 the US economy was nearly 50% of the world's economy. Europe simply didn't have the wherewithall to re-arm. It took Europe 15 years to recover from WW2. German re-armament has always been a sticky subject. Throughout most of the Cold War period we and our allies definitely felt that Germany should not attempt to proximate the grand size of the old Wehrmacht. The French you know bugged out of NATO for the better part of two decades anyway, and as for Britain during the early part of the period we actively encouraged them to retreat fro the old glory days of empire. That left Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Greece and Turkey - well, you see my point.

[Lancer]

Iirc we couldn't get europe to spend even 3% of their GNP...GDP, whatever measure they used, while the US was spending 6%. Granted in 1950 they hadn't anything to spare, but I'm talking about 1965 on, when the Sovs were approaching nuclear parity. Certainly they had the $ to defend themselves by then, but refused to use what was needed to put a strong enough force on the ground. That's why NATO would have had to use nukes if the Sovs invaded imo.

France dropping out was just criminal and deprived NATO of the depth it really needed. All of a sudden, with insufficient force, NATO couldn't give ground. The whole thing was nuts, but nukes saved europe in the end, so maybe they were right not to defend themselves fully.

I don't know, I have mixed feelings on the whole time. Glad to have lived through it, glad the world made it. It makes these times seem tranquil. People forget how it was...

[Zkribbler]

Yeah, I can remember going off to school during the Cuban missile crises. We lived by a missile base, and I didn't know whether a nuclear war would start that day. Very frightening.