• US(AIPAC) Senators pushing for bill that will green-light strike on Iran
    87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=laserguided;39771351]They're the ultimate weapon on war. The idea is that they prevent war, because if war happens billions will die. Who wouldn't use a nuclear weapon to destroy the enemies invasion forces?[/QUOTE] Most countries because as I said, you use one and everyone goes balls out at whoever fired them, not to mention the complete loss of popular support. This isn't the cold war, no one is in favour of dropping H-Bombs anymore. It's literally never going to happen.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39771367]Most countries because as I said, you use one and everyone goes balls out at whoever fired them, not to mention the complete loss of popular support. This isn't the cold war, no one is in favour of dropping H-Bombs anymore. It's literally never going to happen.[/QUOTE] If you think they won't be used why do they automatically deter war? Obviously by your ideals they're useless.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39771372]If you think they won't be used why do they automatically deter war? Obviously by your ideals they're useless.[/QUOTE] Okay let's say you're right and nuclear weapons are going to be used no matter what Why does it matter for the purpose of what was being discussed? Which was clearly conventional military. It had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. What do you bring to the discussion by insinuating that such a disucssion is pointless?
[QUOTE=scout1;39771394]Okay let's say you're right and nuclear weapons are going to be used no matter what Why does it matter for the purpose of what was being discussed? Which was clearly conventional military. It had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. What do you bring to the discussion by insinuating that such a disucssion is pointless?[/QUOTE] Because in WW3 nobody will win, the most powerful countries will reduce Earth's population amazingly. I don't think they should be ruled out in a WW3 scenario. [QUOTE] I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. [/QUOTE]
Better idea: Serbia says war is dumb, Russia and China leave out of war
[QUOTE=laserguided;39771418]Because in WW3 nobody will win, its the battle of the most powerful countries on Earth.[/QUOTE] So you've come to the discussion to tell us our discussion is pointless?
[QUOTE=scout1;39771427]So you've come to the discussion to tell us our discussion is pointless?[/QUOTE] Yes.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39771436]Yes.[/QUOTE] Thanks you could've made your point in one post
[QUOTE=scout1;39771442]Thanks you could've made your point in one post[/QUOTE] I did. Then I asked why you two were disagreeing. What is wrong with discussion?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39771372]If you think they won't be used why do they automatically deter war? Obviously by your ideals they're useless.[/QUOTE] That's because they are, they're never ever going to be launched unless North Korea or some other rogue state with no actual allies fires them.
Money. You can't make money if you aren't selling arms
[QUOTE=laserguided;39771366]Nuclear weapons were used in WW2. That was the last huge war.[/QUOTE] "Vietnam, the Korean war, Iraq, Desert Storm, and the occupation of Afghanistan don't count!"
[QUOTE=zakedodead;39772281]"Vietnam, the Korean war, Iraq, Desert Storm, and the occupation of Afghanistan don't count!"[/QUOTE] Thats a terrible comparison and you should be ashamed. [editline]2nd March 2013[/editline] Do I even bother showing you the countries involved in each of those conflicts then demonstrate how Vietnam, the gulf wars and the mission in afghanistan was not a world war.
You know... we read all these articles and such on the internet, and a lot of it points to the US being pretty overreaching. But... The state of the world is probably more complex than 'war is being perpetuated to give the us government more power'. It would be interesting to get an inside look at how all the military operations the US has around the world are influencing global conditions. I'd bet we'd find lukewarm results between good and bad. I'd love to draw some solid conclusions but I haven't really 'seen' what goes on outside the city i live in. Just heard about it all.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39772296]Thats a terrible comparison and you should be ashamed. [editline]2nd March 2013[/editline] Do I even bother showing you the countries involved in each of those conflicts then demonstrate how Vietnam, the gulf wars and the mission in afghanistan was not a world war.[/QUOTE] Yes those wars are completely insignificant because you say so. I guess if we don't win it's not a "real war" [editline]2nd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ticon;39772598]You know... we read all these articles and such on the internet, and a lot of it points to the US being pretty overreaching. But... The state of the world is probably more complex than 'war is being perpetuated to give the us government more power'. It would be interesting to get an inside look at how all the military operations the US has around the world are influencing global conditions. I'd bet we'd find lukewarm results between good and bad. I'd love to draw some solid conclusions but I haven't really 'seen' what goes on outside the city i live in. Just heard about it all.[/QUOTE] It's not to give the US government more power, it's to siphon money from the government to certain corporations that 'coincidentally' hire the people who help them out most.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;39772648]Yes those wars are completely insignificant because you say so. I guess if we don't win it's not a "real war"[/QUOTE] What are you getting at. 80,000,000 died in WW2. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties[/url] Less than 15,000 died in Afghanistan 2001+, only 3,100 of those coalition causalities.
hey how about stop it congress
Afganistan, iraq, the arab spring and Syria is just the prelude of a much greater war. It won't be just Iran, israel and the US that will play a part in this war. Other super powers and alliances like China, India, Russia and Nato simply have to much to lose to if they do not join the final war over our earths precious black gold that lays hidden beneath the sands.
[QUOTE=IPK;39770870]It's 3 verus 1 three VS one math[/QUOTE] okay I will do the math $129,272,000,000+$64,123,000,000+$7,463,000,000=$200,858,000,000 $689,591,000,000>$200,858,000,000 $689,591,000,000/$200,858,000,000=3.43323 there, math done
[QUOTE=laserguided;39771366]Nuclear weapons were used in WW2. That was the last huge war.[/QUOTE] It's very important to note that: 1. We didn't know the full after-effects of Nuclear Weapons yet 2. Nobody else had Nuclear Weapons / Japan was the last remaining combatant. 3. A traditional land invasion would have drawn the war out for several years and was projected to cost millions of American lives, and at least double that for the Japanese.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39774341]okay I will do the math $129,272,000,000+$64,123,000,000+$7,463,000,000=$200,858,000,000 $689,591,000,000>$200,858,000,000 $689,591,000,000/$200,858,000,000=3.43323 there, math done[/QUOTE] Because throwing money into our military and getting ripped off is really gonna help us beat Russia and China.
It's about the best way to quantify military power, yeah
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39774341]okay I will do the math $129,272,000,000+$64,123,000,000+$7,463,000,000=$200,858,000,000 $689,591,000,000>$200,858,000,000 $689,591,000,000/$200,858,000,000=3.43323 there, math done[/QUOTE] Military budget != Military strength. Besides, that data is likely out of date and inaccurate as spending by China is probably based on a estimate and there are two spending schemes in Russia.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39774428]It's about the best way to quantify military power, yeah[/QUOTE] Raw budget isn't going to help if we're overpaying for what we have compared to them by more than that amount.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;39774470]Raw budget isn't going to help if we're overpaying for what we have compared to them by more than that amount.[/QUOTE] This. All three of those countries mostly consist of state owned defence companies. Even though Russia is capitalist they consider their defence assets key, and the state also profits off of their income. Plus, world war 3 wouldn't only consist of Russia, China. It would consist of all the bordering countries as well. It would be a clusterfuck and set humanity way back.
I'm not saying it's a satisfactory model but it's certainly better than "three countries vs one three obviously wins"
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39774548]I'm not saying it's a satisfactory model but it's certainly better than "three countries vs one three obviously wins"[/QUOTE] But we have such a ridiculous mark up between the manufacturing cost and what the manufacturers charge that the actual budget is massively misleading.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;39774610]But we have such a ridiculous mark up between the manufacturing cost and what the manufacturers charge that the actual budget is massively misleading.[/QUOTE] Mmkay, I understand that now. I just wanted a sassier way to call him an idiot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.