Nukes, Alexander, Hannibal, Genghis and Napoleon

[Kuciwalker]

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.

I suspect he's very very good at Diplomacy.

[TheStinger]

The problem with lets have a conventional war and agree no to use nukes is that it forgets the position of France and the UK. If the US and USSR agree to a no nuke use in the event of conflict in Western Europe, France and the UK are not going to let their countries be overrun and would probably at least resort to tactical nukes which would then lead to a serious escalation.

It has often been said the UK would never use their nukes without US backing, however this is not going to be the case if the US has said in the event of the USSR winning conventionaly it won't go nuclear.

Also if West Germany was convinced US garuntees of security were limited what is stop them building theri own nucs.

Its MAD or nothing

[Patroklos]

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

Do you honestly think there is any country, group of countries, or whole continents that could accomplish that via conventional arms if we were dead set?

Not that most nations have a motivation to try and remove us from Iraq in the first place.

[Ned]

Pat, but the mindset of the person who believes that "many countries" would actually like to go to war against the US for any reason (and this has nothing to do with whether they would win or not) is very interesting by itself.

[One_more_turn]

If I remember correctly, no war of aggression has been won since 1900.

The latest aggressor, George W. Bush, is about to lose.

The last serious aggressor, Saddam Hussein, was recently hanged.

[Ned]

One_more-turn, the US never made a peace deal with Saddam in '91. We simply agreed to stop fighting provided he agreed to do a few things, such as get rid of his WMDs. Now, one might argue about whether Saddam had WMDs or not, but when he kicked the US inspectors out in '98, we were again at war. Clinton immediately attacked and promised more. We gave him more in 2003.

[One_more_turn]

I don't care for legalist or semantic definition of peace and war. Most people, fortunately, don't care about it either.

Invading and occupying another country without being attacked first is aggression.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
One_more-turn, the US never made a peace deal with Saddam in '91. We simply agreed to stop fighting provided he agreed to do a few things, such as get rid of his WMDs. Now, one might argue about whether Saddam had WMDs or not, but when he kicked the US inspectors out in '98, we were again at war. Clinton immediately attacked and promised more. We gave him more in 2003.

Wasn't it Bush who told the inspectors to leave, right before he invaded?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
I don't care for legalist or semantic definition of peace and war. .

Im trying to imagine what a non-semantic "definition" would be. Semantics being the study of what words mean, and all that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
I don't care for legalist or semantic definition of peace and war. Most people, fortunately, don't care about it either.

Invading and occupying another country without being attacked first is aggression.

so how do you feel about patrolling another countrys airspace without its permission, and shooting down its planes whenever they talk off in over 2/3 of the country. Is that not aggression?

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
If I remember correctly, no war of aggression has been won since 1900.

The latest aggressor, George W. Bush, is about to lose.

The last serious aggressor, Saddam Hussein, was recently hanged.

Germany won their wars of aggression against the french, and poles, and norwegians, and dutch, belgians, what have you. They lost their wars of agression against the brits and soviets. Not sure how the war with US was... I think they just declared war.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


so how do you feel about patrolling another countrys airspace without its permission, and shooting down its planes whenever they talk off in over 2/3 of the country. Is that not aggression?

Iraq gave its permission when it signed the cease-fire agreement containing that provision.

Germany won their wars of aggression against the french, and poles, and norwegians, and dutch, belgians, what have you. They lost their wars of agression against the brits and soviets. Not sure how the war with US was... I think they just declared war.

It was all one war -- Germany lost.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Iraq gave its permission when it signed the cease-fire agreement containing that provision.



It was all one war -- Germany lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

"The Iraqi no-fly zones (NFZs) were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no such authorisation."

You can argue that the invasion was a piss poor idea, or that overturning govts threatens world stability, but you what you cant do is say that it was aggression pure and simple, ignoring the dispute about what the ceasefire resolutions actually implied (and whether the US was a direct party to them apart from the UNSC) unles youre willing to say the same things about the no fly zones, in which case youve got to wonder when Bush41 and Clinton will be hung for aggression.

and of course Saddam was NOT hung for aggression, but for crimes against his own people.

[One_more_turn]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun


Germany won their wars of aggression against the french, and poles, and norwegians, and dutch, belgians, what have you. They lost their wars of agression against the brits and soviets. Not sure how the war with US was... I think they just declared war.

You crack me up!

Didn't Germany surrendered unconditionally in the end? It was the most complete defeat a modern nation has ever faced.

[Ned]

Modern? In what sense? Surely South Vietnam suffered a complete defeat.

BTW, why was Germany's invasion of Poland a "war of aggression" while Britain's declaration of war on Germany not?

And, what justification did Britain have in attacking Germany in 1914?