Next country to use a nuclear weapon

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Unless one of the rulers is insane? -I fear this is possible!

if they were really as insane as they seem to be, they would have done it already.

Its always threats and more threats, bu at the end nothing happens.

Originally posted by generalissimo
if they were really as insane as they seem to be, they would have done it already.

Its always threats and more threats, bu at the end nothing happens.

Would you trust the reasonableness and/or sanity of Kim Jung Ill or Mahmoud Achmidenijad with your life?

9/11 and 7/7 and the Madrid bombings never happened... until they did.

Originally posted by sh76
Would you trust the reasonableness and/or sanity of Kim Jung Ill or Mahmoud Achmidenijad with your life?

9/11 and 7/7 and the Madrid bombings never happened... until they did.

No, But that's irrelevant. Like I said before, they would only do it if they're attacked, the constant threats are just a way to hide their insecurity and create a powerful image.

9/11 and 7/7 and the Madrid bombings never happened... until they did.

How exactly are these events related to Ahmadinejad or Kim?

Originally posted by generalissimo
No, But that's irrelevant. Like I said before, they would only do it if they're attacked, the constant threats are just a way to hide their insecurity and create a powerful image.

[b]9/11 and 7/7 and the Madrid bombings never happened... until they did.

How exactly are these events related to Ahmadinejad or Kim?[/b]

All I'm saying is the fact that something has not happened in the past is not a great indication that it will not happen in the future.

What if Kim faces a popular revolt and thinks that the US is behind it, would he use nukes to do what he perceives as necessary to stay in power?

What if Iran gets the bomb and Khameini tells Ahmadinejad that he must, under Islamic law, bomb Copenhagen to rubble in retaliation for printing the Mohammed cartoon (or some such similar future event). Are you confident that he won't do it?

Originally posted by sh76
All I'm saying is the fact that something has not happened in the past is not a great indication that it will not happen in the future.

Well the U.S. has never used nuclear weapons despite having them at their disposal but this is not a great indication that it will not happen in the future.

Originally posted by FMF
Well the U.S. has never used nuclear weapons despite having them at their disposal but this is not a great indication that it will not happen in the future.

Actually, we did use our nukes. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

But, in any case, you're 100% right. There's no guarantee that the US will never use nukes. It comes down to a question of whom you trust more with the key to the nuclear arsenal? Barack Obama or Kim Jung Ill?

Edit: It just occurred to me that maybe you were being ironic about the US never having used nukes. If so, ignore my first sentence.

Originally posted by sh76
Actually, we did use our nukes. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Oh right. Yes. Indeed. Well remembered. But all other uses of nuclear weapons - except when the U.S. uses them - which apparently they did - would be clearly the act of madmen and madwomen. Except if used by U.S. allies/proxies, presumably. And also they are purely defensive weapons, except in the hands of those the U.S. doesn't like, because the U.S. would never use them offensively, although - of course, they did - as you reminded us. So. Are you confident that the U.S. won't do it again?

Originally posted by sh76
All I'm saying is the fact that something has not happened in the past is not a great indication that it will not happen in the future.

What if Kim faces a popular revolt and thinks that the US is behind it, would he use nukes to do what he perceives as necessary to stay in power?

What if Iran gets the bomb and Khameini tells Ahmadinejad that he must, und ...[text shortened]... e Mohammed cartoon (or some such similar future event). Are you confident that he won't do it?

All I'm saying is the fact that something has not happened in the past is not a great indication that it will not happen in the future.

thats true. however, there is a big possibility that it won't happen in the future.

What if Kim faces a popular revolt and thinks that the US is behind it, would he use nukes to do what he perceives as necessary to stay in power?

Probably not (i say probably because I don't know him that well, he could be crazy after all, or just a poser). He'd probably prefer to kill his own people than to engage in a unwinnable war with the US.
Plus, if there were any real threat from Kim the US would strike first.

What if Iran gets the bomb and Khameini tells Ahmadinejad that he must, under Islamic law, bomb Copenhagen to rubble in retaliation for printing the Mohammed cartoon (or some such similar future event). Are you confident that he won't do it?

Well, he wouldn't do that in the first place because they don't want Iran reduced to ashes. Nobody wants to suffer a nuclear attack, not even the guys who pose as bullies.
There is just too much to lose.

Originally posted by sh76
Edit: It just occurred to me that maybe you were being ironic about the US never having used nukes. If so, ignore my first sentence.

Too late. You're first sentence speaks volumes about what your condescending estimations of others' knowledge and intelligence are actually worth. Sorry.

Originally posted by sh76
Would you trust the reasonableness and/or sanity of Kim Jung Ill or Mahmoud Achmidenijad with your life?

9/11 and 7/7 and the Madrid bombings never happened... until they did.

How is using nukes going to help Jung Il or Ahmadinejad?

Originally posted by FMF
Too late. You're first sentence speaks volumes about what your condescending estimations of others' knowledge and intelligence are actually worth. Sorry.

You're a funny guy, FMF. Anyone ever tell you that?

All you care about is trying whatever tactics necessary to make the other person look bad. You couldn't care less about dialogue or debate. All you do is establish your targets and lie in wait to try to stick it to them at every chance. If you can use an irrelevant non-substantive issue to try to embarrass someone, that's perfectly fine with you. It's really sad.

Just look at the other thread about science in public schools. I said something many people here disagree with. You immediately went on the attack and made a few snide remarks about my being a member of Free Republic and some such nonsense. KN and AThousandYoung and PsychoPawn and a few others engaged in a clear rational debate with solid arguments based on solid reasoning. Why don't you read that thread a few dozen times until the concept of civilized discussion sinks in? Either that or take another Valium or whatever you were on last Friday.

By the way, how's the Canadian role in overlord issue going for you? I notice you haven't responded to that for the second time. Still think that Overlord wasn't primarily a US-British operation?

nuclear weapons are, and have always been irrelevant, and are today obsolete and a complete waste of money and time.

http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/apsa1991.pdf

Originally posted by sh76
All you care about is trying whatever tactics necessary to make the other person look bad. [...]
By the way, how's the Canadian role in overlord issue going for you? I notice you haven't responded to that for the second time. Still think that Overlord wasn't primarily a US-British operation?

Your lack of ability to process political humour, in harness with your dour pompous pronouncemnets on who is 'intelligent', is what makes you look bad, not my tactics.

And, as you well know, it was D-Day - and the beaches - that was under discussion in that other thread. You went silent after you bungled it and then I posted the following information:

08 Jun '09 08:22
Originally posted by FMF
Five beaches. Two British. One Canadian. Two American.

sh76: "It was primarily a British-American thing".

Ouch!

Originally posted by sh76
US: 21 Divisions
UK: 19 Divisions
Canada: 5 divisions

All of the major commanders were American or British.

"It was primarily a US-British operation" = accurate

Thank you for one of the most ignorantly exaggerated posts I can ever recall.

21 Divisions? 19 Divisions? What on Earth are you on about?

D-Day, June 6th 1944

Five beaches:

Sword: 28,845 British troops, including some French, landed

Gold: 24,970 British troops landed

Juno: 21,400 Canadian troops landed (under the command of Major General R.F.L. Keller of the Canadian Army) on the second most heavily defended beaches

Omaha: 43,250 American troops landed on the most heavily defended beaches out of the five

Utah: 32,000 American troops landed

Originally posted by FMF
Your lack of ability to process political humour, in harness with your dour pompous pronouncemnets on who is 'intelligent', is what makes you look bad, not my tactics.

And, as you well know, it was D-Day - and the beaches - that was under discussion in that other thread. You went silent after you bungled it and then I posted the following information:

08 J the most heavily defended beaches out of the five

Utah: 32,000 American troops landed

Helllooooooo.... Anybody home up there?

Overlord was not a one day operation. no matter how many times you cite the numbers from the first day, you're not going to be able to erase the rest of the operation from the pages of history.

My original original post that you attacked:

There were French soldiers and Canadian soldiers and Polish and Australian soldiers and probably others, involved in Overlord.

However, it was clearly primarily a British-American operation as much as Stalingrad was a Russian victory although US lend-lease supplies were used.

Any Overlord celebration that doesn't include the British is clearly missing something; although I pass no judgment on the celebration in question as I don't know the details at all. The thrust of Macswain's point, that an Overlord celebration that includes the Americans and French but not the British is incomplete, is correct.

Celebrating Overlord without the British is like celebrating WWI victory without the French or waxing poetic about Blucher's victory over Napoleon without mentioning Wellington.


http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=113428&page=2


As you can clearly see, I said Overlord, Overlord, Overlord; not just D-Day.

Sure, you can try to retroactively change my post, but it's right there in black and white for everyone to read.

Back into the woodwork with you to wait for the next time someone like myself of whodey or generalissimo or Macswain or utherpendragon or melanerpes or elifejesus or anyone whose political outlook is to the right of yours says something you can pounce on.

Have fun.

Originally posted by sh76
Helllooooooo.... Anybody home up there?

Overlord was not a one day operation. no matter how many times you cite the numbers from the first day, you're not going to be able to erase the rest of the operation from the pages of history.

The discussion was about D-Day. As you well know. To cover up your ignorance about the role of the Canadian Army on the 6th June, you cut and paste stuff about Overlord. I suppose it wa either that or admit you'd dropped a clanger.