Silent_One
Newcomer
Not necessarily nukes. Look at Iraq. Pretty average sized country, right? Through a campaign of bombing, missles, atomic bombs...yeah, it would be more than possible to do it without nukes.
Atomic bombs are nukes
Not necessarily nukes. Look at Iraq. Pretty average sized country, right? Through a campaign of bombing, missles, atomic bombs...yeah, it would be more than possible to do it without nukes.
Not for the larger countries. 24 hours is a lot of time with the weapons we have to "play" with.
Silent_One said:Not necessarily nukes. Look at Iraq. Pretty average sized country, right? Through a campaign of bombing, missles, atomic bombs...yeah, it would be more than possible to do it without nukes.
Atomic bombs are nukes
OMG...
Silent_One said:CosmoKramer wrote:OMG...
MrsSkywalker said:I think I see them as such a threat on the ground b/c of the Korean conflict. We were totally stalemated. They couldn't defeat us, but they held us. Kind of leaves a strong impression in a country's mind. Um, M*A*S*H didn't help, either
Also, from what I`ve heard, a nation just has to launch a small nuke into low orbit, and the gps would go out of commision... that would make it even harder to wipe out the defenses...
MrsSkywalker said:Let me clarify what I meant. When I hear "nukes" I think of fusion bombs...I was speaking of the fission bombs we used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sorry for the confusion!
CosmoKramer said:Rolleyes for Skywalker, not you.
If I recall correctly, it was a political stalemate. Militarily, the US was pushing the Chinese back (and at one point US pushed all the way to the Yalu river and could have crossed into China). MacArthur wanted to bomb chinese factories, power plants, bridges, and dams to cut supplies and cause a huge humanitarian problem for them which would prevent them from sustaining foreign operations. Like Vietnam, the "stalemate" existed because the US did not want to "widen" the war, *even though the chinese already had technically widened it by sending forces into Korea* Strange that the US government accepted the presence of huge numbers of belligerent foreign forces killing UN troops, but would not consider the enemy's territory "fair game"
I don't know how other USers feel, but I for one am willing to pay more in taxes to fund the development/implementation of tech savvy weapons that will spare the lives of as many innocents as possible.
V3 said:I don't know how other USers feel, but I for one am willing to pay more in taxes to fund the development/implementation of tech savvy weapons that will spare the lives of as many innocents as possible.
I think its better to spend the money to avoid war, if that at all possible.
Spend money to improve relationship between nations Not building more weapons that will only increased tension.
DemoCoder said:But is it moral to "improve relations with" (and legitimize) dictatorial thuggish regimes? Isn't that just aiding in the slaughter of the countries you are "improving relations" with? Won't we be accused of "cuddling dictators" by the self righteous left?
But is it moral to "improve relations with" (and legitimize) dictatorial thuggish regimes?
Isn't that just aiding in the slaughter of the countries you are "improving relations" with? Won't we be accused of "cuddling dictators" by the self righteous left?
I'm not so sure, isn't GPS shielded against EMP? I think the MILSTAR (communication sat) spec was actually designed in the '80s to bypass nuclear winter type conditions; and something tells me GPS was similiar due to it's origional ColdWar conception. Maybe Democoder knows more, he's pretty good with this stuff...
Explain to me why it is moral to improve relations with other countries, regardless of those countries behavior?
Are you saying that good relations with an entity are a moral good in and of itself, over and above that entity's own behavior?
Is improving relations with Hitler a moral good?
Better yet, explain exactly how you would spend the money on "improving relations with another country", specifically.
How do you "spend money" improving relations with your signifigant other if he/she no longer wants to be in the relationship, for instance?It's not always possible, man... That's why we have a military.
V3 said:Is improving relations with Hitler a moral good?
If the Jews have a good relationship with Hitler, the bad things could have been avoided. The better your relationship are, the easier it should be to settle things diplomatically instead of through war.