Nuclear war comes that little bit closer

[Fat Dog]

Every time this nuclear argument comes around I always remind myself that only one nation has ever used them in anger.

ps I am not anti America.

[kyska]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Not quite what i meant, they may as well use the missile itself as a weapon and get bigger yields. Edited February 7, 2016 by kyska

[grrclark]

Why shouldn't North Korea have a nuclear capabilitie or Iran for another matter. Nutters like the Americans and Isrealis have them and they are the only idiots on the planet stupid and self absorbed enough to use them. Nuclear war will only ever be started by USA or Israel they are by far the most dangerous terrorists on the planet . FACT

Who says that's a FACT?

[sle]

Anyone who is able to make a decision based on facts

 

Who says that's a FACT?

[grrclark]

Anyone who is able to make a decision based on facts

 

 

So what are the facts your decision is based on?

[sle]

the facts of reality

So what are the facts your decision is based on?

[grrclark]

the facts of reality

 

So no facts at all then, just your opinion.

 

Adding FACT after your opinion makes it neither any more credible or accurate.

[sle]

Try opening your eyes a bit to what these people actually do.

 

quote name="grrclark" post="2998228" timestamp="1454885467"]So no facts at all then, just your opinion.

Adding FACT after your opinion makes it neither any more credible or accurate.

[panoma1]

Rather than being a "limp opinion", it's a reasoned and intelligent view.

 

To scrap the "rule book" is to give carte blanche to those who would perpetrate the sorts of atrocities that occured during the Holocaust; on WW2's Eastern Front; at My Lai; in the Balkans; and in innumerable other places at innumerable other times down mankind's long and bloody history.

 

How are war criminals to be held to account if their actions are no longer regarded as crimes under the international law that you would, presumably, delete?

 

It's all very well to advocate all-out total war in far-away places whoses names you can hardly spell, and which you'd be hard-put to identify on a world map. It's fine for the fantasy world of computer games.

 

It's an entirely different matter when war comes to your doorstep and suddenly you and yours stand a very good chance of becoming those casualties that you would previously have simply dismissed as "collateral damage".

To claim it is a reasoned and intelligent view is merely an opinion isn't it?

 

To clear up any misunderstandings It wasn't my intention to advocate scrapping the "rule book" in a conventional war, I was stating opinion that in certain circumstances, our troops should be allowed to fight fire with fire, for example, if the enemy are extremist terrorists fighting a guerilla war, and do not comply with the "rule book", why should our troops? Especially when attempting to do so will render them vulnerable and most likely get them killed!

 

Recent history proves a conventional army is unlikely to defeat a guerilla army because the conventional army are the only ones constrained by the "rule book"!.............if defeating the enemy is the objective an army should be prepared to use all means at their disposal, they are unlikely to be victorious by "pulling their punches"

 

Oh! And FYI I've never played a computer game!

[grrclark]

If nukes are a deterrent then why shouldn't North Korea have them ? Surely the same rationale that entitles America and its allies to own thousands of warheads can be applied to them, maybe they fear us attacking them.

It's fun being devils advocate

 

Nobody else should be able to have them as it increases the likelihood of a nuclear conflict occuring.

 

Bad enough that anybody has them, but restricting any further proliferation must be good thing. Pandoras box was opened and we can not undo that, but we can try and limit further deterioration.

 

Also N. Korea is hardly a stable regime and to have weapons of that magnitude in a regime that is so dependent on a fragile dictatorship would be desperately alarming

[grrclark]

Try opening your eyes a bit to what these people actually do.

 

Try elucidating your point a little better by actually contributing something of substance instead of loose and hugely generalised anti American or anti Isreali comments.

 

Give a little detail. If you believe strongly about it then educate the PW masses, win them to your cause with cogent argument.

 

What is it that you suggest I am blind to that would reinforce your argument that the only people who would start a nuclear conflict is America or Israel?

[welsh1]

That's all well and good, and I admire your principals. However, just how many of the troops lying in cemeteries due to having their hands tied by red tape and moral obligations would agree with you ? I never served in any of the armed forces, and I don't know if you have, I do know though that principles and morals would be the first thing I would dump if some Arab was shooting at me on a battlefield.

 

Why would i need to dump my principles and morals if some "arab" was shooting at me on a battlefield? I would be quite within my rights to engage with him and kill him if necessary.The rules of engagement are quite clear and all troops know them.

[aldivalloch]

To claim it is a reasoned and intelligent view is merely an opinion isn't it?

 

To clear up any misunderstandings It wasn't my intention to advocate scrapping the "rule book" in a conventional war, I was stating opinion that in certain circumstances, our troops should be allowed to fight fire with fire, for example, if the enemy are extremist terrorists fighting a guerilla war, and do not comply with the "rule book", why should our troops? Especially when attempting to do so will render them vulnerable and most likely get them killed!

 

Recent history proves a conventional army is unlikely to defeat a guerilla army because the conventional army are the only ones constrained by the "rule book"!.............if defeating the enemy is the objective an army should be prepared to use all means at their disposal, they are unlikely to be victorious by "pulling their punches"

 

Oh! And FYI I've never played a computer game!

Yes, it's purely my opinion - I don't think I claimed it to be fact. I described it as reasoned and intelligent because that's how it came across to me, in contrast to some of the other rather less well-thought-out posts on the subject.

 

I don't think you can pick and choose between "conventional" war (which, anyway, I believe, is usually construed as non-nuclear warfare) and "guerilla" warfare waged by terrorists. For one thing, the term "terrorist" can often be too vague and / or subjective.

 

And it's not just recent history that indicates that a conventional army is unlikely to beat a guerilla army. The Romans didn't have a lot of luck north of Hadrian's Wall, did they?

 

I have no issue with an army using all legitimate means at its disposal to defeat an enemy. The key word is "legitimate". Chemical warfare? Germ warfare? Nuclear warfare? Scorched earth? Systematic genocide? Rape? Torture? A policy of "no prisoners"?

 

How far is too far? It's precisely why rules are required - to attempt to protect both participants and the civilian populations caught up in the madness that is warfare by imposing the potential for prosecution for breaching these "rules" and committing what we label "war crimes".

 

Better by far to take a consistent line in keeping with international law and stick with it.

[evo]

judging by what I have seen in previous wars ,,,there are no bloody rules,,,, well there is but it seems no-one sticks too them and that includes us brits,

 

very interesting topic this,

 

carry on the battle gents I,m just going for my horlics as I,m knackered lol

[Hamster]

It's fun being devils advocate

 

Nobody else should be able to have them as it increases the likelihood of a nuclear conflict occuring.

 

Bad enough that anybody has them, but restricting any further proliferation must be good thing. Pandoras box was opened and we can not undo that, but we can try and limit further deterioration.

 

Also N. Korea is hardly a stable regime and to have weapons of that magnitude in a regime that is so dependent on a fragile dictatorship would be desperately alarming

 

It increases the likelihood of being served one back yes.

 

Restricting further proliferation IS a good thing, but only for those who already have them I mean how is it a good thing for those on the receiving end of American interference and irrational sanctions and decades long growth prohibition using their allies as a tool ?

 

We don't know how unstable a regime NK are, judging by the other unstable regimes having done nothing compared to countries who do possess nukes doesn't fill me with confidence that we are told the truth.

 

If you look around and compare the bully boy gait and actions of countries WITH nukes, it becomes clear it is a bad toy but only when others want it.

 

Israel has nukes, it also has an undeniable history of repeated incursions into its neighbouring lands, why is it not under NK style sanctions ? NK was only created after yet another American (peace lovers that they are) war in that region, they split a country into two and now claim one half of an identical ethnic entity are bad but the other half which they support and arm are good.

 

This nukes thing is a huge red herring. If they're so bad lets get rid of the lot, bet those who have them suddenly change their tune and it always involves pointing the finger at those without .

Edited February 8, 2016 by Hamster

[paulus]

if you send men into hell, then don`t be surprised when they act like demons.

 

People seem to misunderstand what happens in a theater of war, the sacrifices made and the horrors they live with forever. Most importantly people seem to misunderstand the reason they are sent in to do the job they do.

Edited February 8, 2016 by paulus

[Hamster]

 

Well worth watching Noam Chomsky, time after time he blows apart simplistic slogans which are designed to mean nothing of substance but to deflect attention away from wrongs being done to our so called enemies.

 

We do bad things to bad people is yet another, who after all decides who is bad ? Does the bad get an opportunity to show you he's not bad before being blown apart ?

 

The Western world thrives on simplistic, meaningless narratives such as "they" can't be trusted with nukes. Says who ? The one who used them twice already ? The one whose history is pock marked with illegal invasions and wars ?

 

Imagine a world where Pakistan wasn't nuclear armed but trying to acquire it as a means of deterrence against India/American aggression - the media would be awash with "can't let these crazy fanatics have a nuke rubbish". Not saying it's good they have them but they have had them for 2 decades and not lobbed them about willy nilly AND America hasn't dared attack them. Same with Russia.

 

They might use drones over a sovereign nation without seeking permission first but anyone who thinks you could turn Pakistan into rubble like Iraq without them incinerating hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and civilians is a fool, hence we give them billions in aid (blood money) instead.

 

Red herring as I said, I also despair at the futility of being hoodwinked into spending trillions on next generation nukes, spend it on conventional forces and army instead.

 

Nukes are good for business and that is the business of dictating your will.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Hamster

[STOTTO]

If nukes are a deterrent then why shouldn't North Korea have them ? Surely the same rationale that entitles America and its allies to own thousands of warheads can be applied to them, maybe they fear us attacking them.

 

Please add to my certificate; One ‘Five Megaton Airburst Thermonuclear Device’, restrictions of use, North Korea and AOLQ!

 

Regards