Nukes, Alexander, Hannibal, Genghis and Napoleon

[Rasputin]

Whilst all out wars of Major power versus other major power have not occured. What has happened in the last 60 years or so that is getting out of hand, is Major power attacking minor power.

In days gone by, the major powers would not interfer with smaller powers becuase everyone else would help and support that minor power. but now due to any excallation leading to nuke war, the major powers are too scared.

Examples.

Russia invades Afghanistan
USA invades Iraq Twice and Afhanistan
USA invades central america.
USA invades Somalia.

The big boys can now do as they please with no worries about anyone stopping them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rasputin
Whilst all out wars of Major power versus other major power have not occured. What has happened in the last 60 years or so that is getting out of hand, is Major power attacking minor power.

In days gone by, the major powers would not interfer with smaller powers becuase everyone else would help and support that minor power. but now due to any excallation leading to nuke war, the major powers are too scared.

Examples.

Russia invades Afghanistan
USA invades Iraq Twice and Afhanistan
USA invades central america.
USA invades Somalia.

The big boys can now do as they please with no worries about anyone stopping them.

\

Not so. In many ways OBL's attacks on us are a direct result of the first Gulf war. Every time we poke our nose into an Islamic country it gets poked. But the major effort by Islam against the US proper is a direct result of Bush and Clinton leaving our "crusader" army in the ME after the Gulf war.

[Rasputin]

I am terribly sorry t osay this. but the loss of life in numbers due to Islamic attacks on USA territory are nothing compared to the attacks by USA forces in Islamic territories. SO whilst it is bad to lose lives at World trade centre, again , no one is stopping the USA invasion in those countries it chooses to invade.

If no one had Nukes, then i bet many countries would be now using Military force to remvoe the US forces from IRAQ.

[Ned]

Ras, if you recall, the very reason for the UN resolutions about Iraq and the reason for the recent war was a concern about Saddam acquiring WMD's.

Now, why should the world be concerned about that? Why should Europeans be concerned about a nuclear-armed Iraq on its borders?

Could it be that alone among the nations of the world since the close of WWII, Iraq under Saddam actually used WMD's in warfare?

[Rasputin]

umm, he didnt have any weopons of mas destruction if you recall!!!!


the UN were tricke by Bush !!!


The reason for the was was to get oil prices higher....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The Soviets send a note saying that when we attack Kalingrad (lets assume theyve guessed at our likely response), they will attack New York, DC, Chicago, and LA, the whole nine yards?

Now maybe you think theyre bluffing. Is it rational to take the chance?

By the time anybody reads the note...hell, by the time the nuke goes off, there are a hundred warheads in the air already...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az

an then you die. I forgot to mention that with the note, they also offered to negotiate an end to the war, with fairly reasonable terms - the demilitirization of West Germany or something like that - not the end of liberty in the US. Is it worth initiating a globe destroying nuclear exchange for some strategic issue? And if it is, then wouldnt it have been so WITHOUT the Soviet first strike, which would prove MAD a failure?

lotm, you're one scary mother****er.

It's not an original thought. I've seen it before. I don't think that anybody negotiates after they've been nuked (if they have nukes and the capacity to deliver them)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
the reason for the recent war was a concern about Saddam acquiring WMD's.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It's not an original thought. I've seen it before. I don't think that anybody negotiates after they've been nuked (if they have nukes and the capacity to deliver them)

to clarify, I never claimed it was an original thought. Its based on stuff I vaguely remember from the days when people actually challenged and explored the logic of MAD, which it is apparently no longer PC to do, even in Israel.

[KrazyHorse]

I didn't think you had. I wanted to say that you're not that scary (since you just repeated what some other scary guy said).

I never meant to imply you were taking "credit" which wasn't due.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
The problem I have with the "nukes prevent big wars" logic is that many weapons have been created in the past and thought to be so terrible that they would limit war (the first machine guns, IIRC, for instance). Yet we then went on to use them to slaughter each other.
-Arrian

India and Pakistan came way too close a fews years back.

And so did the U.S. and the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I didn't think you had. I wanted to say that you're not that scary (since you just repeated what some other scary guy said).

I never meant to imply you were taking "credit" which wasn't due.

the fact that it wasnt original hardly means im not scary.

[Az]

It's not an original thought. I've seen it before. I don't think that anybody negotiates after they've been nuked (if they have nukes and the capacity to deliver them)

That's pure theory, though, as well. Noone knows how will people react when they'll have to actually push the button. In that case, the more you are ethical and humanist , the more you're a suitable target for such a shtick.

[lord of the mark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rasputin
umm, he didnt have any weopons of mas destruction if you recall!!!!


the UN were tricke by Bush !!!


The reason for the was was to get oil prices higher....

Ras, why of course!!!