14 Aug 03
1 edit
Quote from a NewScientist review:
Then there was the time a head of civil defence in the UK admitted on live radio that he was preparing for an 'area denial' strike by US nuclear forces as much as anything else.
Of course, this man's worst fears were never realised, but suppose Russia had, in fact, invaded the UK. I would very much like to hear from someone who believes, or believed at some point, that 'area denial' (~50 megadeaths, to borrow some jargon from the film Dr. Strangelove) would then have been justified, and their reasoning as to why. If no such people exist, then we can all be thankful.
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by AcolyteThis is why the deterant was so important.Don't forget Lockerbie.You can put a bomb in a radio.
Quote from a NewScientist review:
Then there was the time a head of civil defence in the UK admitted on live radio that he was preparing for an 'area denial' strike by US nuclear forces as much as anything else.
Of course, this man's worst fears were never realised, but suppose Russia had, in fact, invaded the UK. I would very much like to h ...[text shortened]... justified, and their reasoning as to why. If no such people exist, then we can all be thankful.
Linda.
14 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolyteCrikey, the American school system never mentioned this one. That's awful, and unspeakably arrogant for the American government to assume that the British people are "better dead than Red".
Quote from a NewScientist review:
Then there was the time a head of civil defence in the UK admitted on live radio that he was preparing for an 'area denial' strike by US nuclear forces as much as anything else.
Of course, th ...[text shortened]... as to why. If no such people exist, then we can all be thankful.
Colin, this policy fits in nicely with some of the rather odd views and actions floating about in the US defense infrastructure during the Cold War (or now for that matter). I think anyone supporting the insanity of things like MAD is perfectly capable of justifying this "area denial" business.
(Note in view of first paragraph: In fact, Marx apparently intended his model of communism to be put into practice by the British because of the advanced industry he felt was prerequisite to establishing successful communism.)
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by AcolyteHow many lives did it cost? Now they admit they did it..It is war.If they planted a bomb in a radio to kill on Pan Am,then they declared war on us.We might not Nuke them,but we won't roll over either.
I'm afraid I don't follow. Britain has never had anything with which to deter the US! I also don't see how this relates to Lockerbie.
Linda.
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by missleadWhat are you talking about? It was the Libyans that blew up PanAm 203 over Lockerbie, which killed Britons and Americans (and others). I don't see how this is relevant in the slightest.
How many lives did it cost? Now they admit they did it..It is war.If they planted a bomb in a radio to kill on Pan Am,then they declared war on us.We might not Nuke them,but we won't roll over either.
Linda.
Paul.
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by AcolyteIt is not about mega deaths. One is one too many.it is not about power.
I'm afraid I don't follow. Britain has never had anything with which to deter the US! I also don't see how this relates to Lockerbie.
We should admit that we can be hit.If we do not do that we waste the lives of brave people.
Linda
14 Aug 03
2 edits
Originally posted by royalchickenActually, I've just thought of a possible moral justification (from a logical perspective only.) Assume the following axioms:
Crikey, the American school system never mentioned this one. That's awful, and unspeakably arrogant for the American government to assume that the British people are "better dead than Red".
Colin, this policy fits in nicely with ...[text shortened]... ry he felt was prerequisite to establishing successful communism.)
1. Communism is the work of the Devil, and all its adherents will go to hell.
2. Prior to Russian invasion, Britain would contain at least some people whose souls would be saved.
3. Saving peoples' souls has priority over all else.
Then:
4. If Britain were about to be converted to Communism, it would be better to destroy it to save the souls of some of its inhabitants.
For anyone out there worried about religious fanaticism: Beware of the Christian and Jewish fanatics. Even if they are less numerous, they are on average a good deal richer and more influential than the Muslim ones.
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by AcolyteLife is more important than death.
Actually, I've just thought of a possible moral justification (from a logical perspective only.) Assume the following axioms:
1. Communism is the work of the Devil, and all its adherents will go to hell.
2. Prior to Russian invasion, Britain would contain at least some people whose souls would be saved.
3. Saving peoples' souls has priority over ...[text shortened]... less numerous, they are on average a good deal richer and more influential than the Muslim ones.
Linda
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by AcolyteThis thread and this post is a good example of what makes Socialists so dangerous. Lets pick it apart one line at a time...
Quote from a NewScientist review:
Then there was the time a head of civil defence in the UK admitted on live radio that he was preparing for an 'area denial' strike by US nuclear forces as much as anything else.
Of course, this man's worst fears were never realised, but suppose Russia had, in fact, invaded the UK. I would very much like to h ...[text shortened]... justified, and their reasoning as to why. If no such people exist, then we can all be thankful.
"a head of civil defence".... give us a name and date. Lets see his/her credentials as to a good, secure working knowledge of US official pollicy at the time in question.
"area denial"... show us in NORAD documents or US state and/or defence department documents where there is such a policy.
"Suppose Russia had, in fact, invaded the UK"... Ok... I suppose they would shoot the kingy and queeny. Big deal. That sounds like a pretty damn good deal to me. We fought a couple of wars to be free of the twits. From what i read here in the forums, about 50 percent of the people in the UK would have welcomed the Russians with open arms, so again. That's the way it goes. You'll have to check with Hungarians and Checz's to see if that was a good experience.
Bombing your allies under any circumstance is and would be wrong, and as long as this is just silly conjecture anyway, i proffer that the US never would have. Just because you "supposedly" get one silly commie on a tv show saying silly things in no reason to perpetuate hatred, and trying to bring down an allied nation, ie, the US.
14 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolyteWhew Doggie! This is fun!
Actually, I've just thought of a possible moral justification (from a logical perspective only.) Assume the following axioms:
1. Communism is the work of the Devil, and all its adherents will go to hell.
2. Prior to Russian invasion ...[text shortened]... rage a good deal richer and more influential than the Muslim ones.
1 - Communism is the work of evil people. All it's adherents will be fine. It's opponents (our friends) will be shot. As with naziism... "the others are sub-human"... In marxism, "others" are defined by class and in naziism by race. Other than that, no difference in the need to kill the "others". REFERENCE READING... see Stalin, "killing" kulaks, aka, "bourgeois". Mao's China and 61 million dead. Pol Pot's Cambodia and Killing fields ... the motto there was "Only the unborn are innocent".
2 - Prior to Russian invasion, Britain would contain just about what it does now, so what the heck. Many good people and some worn out commies.
3 - What the hell is a "Soul"?
4 - If Britain were about to be conscripted to Communism, that is their problem. Again ask eastern european nations if that is good or bad.
5 - Don't forget worn out commies, greens and silly socialists. They are twice as devoted and ruthless than any christian or jew I ever met.
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyInteresting... if this is a joke, I can't quite see which group of people you're making fun of.
Whew Doggie! This is fun!
1 - Communism is the work of evil people. All it's adherents will be fine. It's opponents (our friends) will be shot. As with naziism... "the others are sub-human"... In marxism, "others" are defined by class and in naziism by race. Other than that, no difference in the need to kill the "others". REFERENCE READING... ...[text shortened]... cialists. They are twice as devoted and ruthless than any christian or jew I ever met.
