north korea launch missile

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

Should have nuked the buggars back in the fifties, woulod have been all over now. As a result Pakistan, India to name two would not have nuclear weapons or rockets.

Without having a cold heart about it I wish we hadn't left themselves to their own devices. This will be one of the powderkegs in the end. We are in the first ten minutes of this game.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

Americuh

**** yeahh

Comin again to save the mother ****** day yeah

Americuh
(the only nation on Earth to have used not one, but two nuclear weapons on populated urban areas)

**** yeahhh

freedom is the only way yeahh

If Churchill had that option with the Germans running rampant would he have used them to keep England safe if the US hadn't intervened? Berlin bombing was the most populated area of Germany in World War two. So was London when the Germans bombed us. You need to check the history books a little.b)

 

[gordonjblair]

If Churchill had that option with the Germans running rampant would he have used them to keep England safe if the US hadn't intervened? Berlin bombing was the most populated area of Germany in World War two. So was London when the Germans bombed us. You need to check the history books a little.b)

while we're at checking the history books b), Japan we're hardly running rampant at the time of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima blasts, they just weren't giving up.

The key defence for dropping the bombs has never been that it was in self defence, merely that it was a pragmatic way of bringing the war to a close. One final act of mass bloodshed against a further couple of years of large losses on both sides as US forces would have been compelled to take the country Island by Island, town by town... not an appealing prospect for anyone.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

while we're at checking the history books b), Japan we're hardly running rampant at the time of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima blasts, they just weren't giving up.

The key defence for dropping the bombs has never been that it was in self defence, merely that it was a pragmatic way of bringing the war to a close. One final act of mass bloodshed against a further couple of years of large losses on both sides as US forces would have been compelled to take the country Island by Island, town by town... not an appealing prospect for anyone.

Your absolutely spot on Gordon. The US secretly had the means and beat the Germans to it. Actually it was well known the Germans were close to the development of the A-bomb. The Pacific island fighting was the most bloodiest in terms of hand to hand combat. So a quick solution to finish one front and pour more assets on the european front doomed Hitler.

America has always been seen as the aggressor droping the Manhatten project bombs. But lets be a little realistic who started the whole thing on a sunday morning in 1941. Then what about the suttle alliance with the axis Germany & Italy also aggressors. If the US hadn't broken the will of the Japanese at that time what would have been the repercussions for all the allied nations. Families from every nation gave up loved ones especially mine during bombing raids in Liverpool.

In retrospect the US does seem to flex its muscle and that type of attitude doesn't go over too well with its friends especially the French. But its a site lot better than we had to prepare for when I was at Hudson School in the 60's & 70's when I was growing up fearing the red threat and how they were planning blitzreig type attacks from their satelite nations at the time to overrun the continent. Without a Nato alliance and check & balances from Amercuh that Nanos on about doesn't sit well with me. In my opinion we all need each other to solve and stamp out fires were ever they rise.

 

[NeoNaoNeo]

If Churchill had that option with the Germans running rampant would he have used them to keep England safe if the US hadn't intervened? Berlin bombing was the most populated area of Germany in World War two. So was London when the Germans bombed us. You need to check the history books a little.b)

*checks the history books*

No, I was correct. The US is the only country to use a Nuclear weapon on a populated urban area.

b)b)b)b)b)

See I can do the cool faces aswell.

Never remarked that other countries may have used them in the World War 2 had the situation arose, simply said that the US is lecturing everyone else on nuclear proliferation when they're the only nuclear aggressors in the history of the world, and the current owner of the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear missiles.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

*checks the history books*

No, I was correct. The US is the only country to use a Nuclear weapon on a populated urban area.

b)b)b)b)b)

See I can do the cool faces aswell.

Never remarked that other countries may have used them in the World War 2 had the situation arose, simply said that the US is lecturing everyone else on nuclear proliferation when they're the only nuclear aggressors in the history of the world, and the current owner of the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear missiles.

Ok I can go with that. Hypothectically if the US hadn't used them to submit Japan to surrender at a quicker pace could Europe have been saved from either Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia?

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

Should have nuked the buggars back in the fifties, woulod have been all over now. As a result Pakistan, India to name two would not have nuclear weapons or rockets.

Found this earlier.

Times of India
Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Pakistan could collapse within six months in the face of the snowballing insurgency, a top expert on guerrilla warfare has said.

The dire prediction was made by David Kilcullen, a former adviser to top US military commander General David Petraeus.

David Kilcullen is the best known practitioner of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations and had advised Gen Petraeus on the counter-insurgency programme in Iraq. Few experts understand the nature of the insurgency in Af-Pak as well and he is now advising Petraeus in Afghanistan.

Petraeus also echoed the same thought when he told a Congressional testimony last week that the insurgency could “take down” Pakistan, which is home to nuclear weapons and al-Qaida.



Kilcullen’s comments come as Pakistan witnesses an unprecedented upswing in terror strikes and now some analysts in Pakistan and Washington are putting forward apocalyptic timetables for the country.

“We are running out of time to help Pakistan change its present course toward increasing economic and political instability, and even ultimate failure,” said a recent report by a task force of the Atlantic Council that was led by former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. The report, released in February, gave the Pakistani government 6 to 12 months before things went from bad to dangerous.

 

[gordonjblair]

Ok I can go with that. Hypothectically if the US hadn't used them to submit Japan to surrender at a quicker pace could Europe have been saved from either Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia?

ummm.. Mike, back to those books again I'm afraid... VE Day was 8th May 1945. The bombs on Japan were 13 weeks later: Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima Aug 6th, Fat Man on Nagasaki Aug 9th (the Trinity test blast with Gadget didn't take place until July 16th) or to put it another way, the US was so keen to use this weapon, within 4 weeks of it's first proving test, they'd used it twice [sorry , that's just baiting]

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

ummm.. Mike, back to those books again I'm afraid... VE Day was 8th May 1945. The bombs on Japan were 13 weeks later: Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima Aug 6th, Fat Man on Nagasaki Aug 9th (the Trinity test blast with Gadget didn't take place until July 16th) or to put it another way, the US was so keen to use this weapon, within 4 weeks of it's first proving test, they'd used it twice [sorry , that's just baiting]

**Red faced**

I stand corrected.:blink: I had it in my mind full emphasis in Europe was after the bomb blasts on the Japenese mainland. Thanks for setting me straight.

**head sunken and arms folded behind my back**

 

[TX Bill]

Indeed I do, but in the complete reverse way that you do

I would hope so.

By reading the absolute rubbish in your reply above, only a bleeding heart liberal with no concept of the world we live in today would make the comments you did above.

War of provocation in Afghanistan? Hahahahahaha... !!!!

I'll make this simple for you.

Afghanistan harbors Taliban...Taliban harbors Al Qaeda...Al Qaeda attacks United States of America. And we were the provocateurs?

You're having a laugh Andy. Please don't tell me we had no right to go in and take out the Taliban. You already look like a fool for your commentary above but that Iraq and Afghanistan comments really take the cake. When I hear spineless people tell me that the USA had "no right" to attack the Taliban, conversation ends. It tells me they aren't even willing to concede to basic logic and understanding.

So you're saying we should have "negotiated" with them?

2900+ dead people say go *&^% yourself.

Come back to us when you have something of substance vs. parroting liberal bull**** lines.

"USA bent on world domination. War for oil. Halliburton. Chimpy McHitler Bush. Guantanamo. Abu Gharib. Blackwater."

You could have just said all of the above and been just as effective than parsing my post and responding to each comment. In short. Get educated. Get informed. Understand the world we live in. Then get back to us with when you have something of real substance to say.

But please save the liberal bile you just spewed above. No basis in fact at all.

 

[NeoNaoNeo]

How is the Bin Laden hunt going by the way.

 

[TX Bill]

Well since we haven't found him, I'd say not good.

Who knows though? Personally, I think he's dead.

He hasn't made any video appearances at all in years. Al Qaeda says he's still alive but I think he's been gone for awhile now. You'd have seen him by now.

 

[Dylan]

*checks the history books*

No, I was correct. The US is the only country to use a Nuclear weapon on a populated urban area.

b)b)b)b)b)

See I can do the cool faces aswell.

Never remarked that other countries may have used them in the World War 2 had the situation arose, simply said that the US is lecturing everyone else on nuclear proliferation when they're the only nuclear aggressors in the history of the world, and the current owner of the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear missiles.

Nobody is denying that. I think the fact that we understand nuclear weapons a little more now is testament to the fact we haven't used them since except in a deterrent role.

As for being owners of the worlds largest nuclear stockpile...might want to check your facts on that one. Look up the START II and SALT treaties. Russia has quite a few nukes still hidden away.

Also love the way you act like we are trying to keep our ball in regards to nuclear proliferation. Do you really want a country like Iran, who have vowed to wipe another nation off of the face of the planet, to have access to nuclear weapons? Shows a little ignorance in your views by taking that approach.

 

[TX Bill]

Yes, let's worry about the USA's nuclear capabilities when there are any number of countries/organizations that would just love to set one off in any major metropolitan area.

 

[Bundy]

Let's forget about north korea, afghanistan etc. and attack new zealand, they are a much easier target http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/ale-house/9195-fun-youtube-clips.html#post299898