Man with no arms denied entry to UK, because his fingerprints were of 'poor quality'

[Joao Moutinho]

If were to have nukes in this country it would only add to the problem, not solve it.

 

[steken1]

We should nuke France and Argentina as a show of strength.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

We should nuke France and Argentina as a show of strength.

Any excuse not to buy Riquelme.

 

[steken1]

Any excuse not to buy Riquelme.

These Euro-camp places are a breeding ground for loose women. Costing us a fortune bringing these anglo-french love children up.

Plus Argentina keep knocking us out of cups and saying nasty things about us.

Surely everyone want's to see what would happen if a modern nuke was dropped on say, a big city, or small country???

Britain always led the world in the past we should do so again. The opportunities there. We just need to grasp it.

 

[Brennan]

Perversely it does contribute greatly to it mate.

Russia were moments away from firing nuclear weapons at one stage, despite the USA having them.

There's certainly no proof of nuclear weapons being a deterrent, anyway.

As previously said, any country that launched a nuclear weapon would be flattened by the US' traditional weaponry regardless.

 

[steken1]

Russia were moments away from firing nuclear weapons at one stage, despite the USA having them.

There's certainly no proof of nuclear weapons being a deterrent, anyway.

As previously said, any country that launched a nuclear weapon would be flattened by the US' traditional weaponry regardless.

Depends what you're trying to deter. It's unheard of that we could be invaded again. As a fairly small Island nation that's worth a great deal.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

We're already being invaded by these immigrants. You can tell them because they all wear the same uniform. Anyone in a red coat is an insurgent that must be repelled. Think of our children dammit.

 

[Bluenose1995]

Fairly sure "Jesus man" would be against nukes.

The problem with these crazy dictators is that they are crazy. When you have that level of power you tend to start to believe your own BS. The US, UK and allies don't need nukes to wipe out N. Korea -- sure it'd be cheaper and quicker but we have enough regular bombs to flatten the entire country 100 times over (and regular bombs wouldn't fallout onto S. Korea and surrounding areas).

Nukes are not the one thing to deter a situation like N. Korea. Either he's insane (in which case he probably doesn't care if seal team six, a drone, a bunker buster or a nuke takes him out) or he's sane (and he isn't going to do anything but sabre rattle because he knows it would end badly regardless of nukes).

In truth the US probably loves Kim Jong-un. Get everyone riled up so they can continue to justify the insane amount of money they pour into the military industrial complex because of how many "dangerous" people there are out there. Meanwhile the only people Kim Jong-un is any genuine threat to are his own citizens and he will continue to starve them even if he apologized and pledged to never threaten the west again.

Fairly sure the people starving to death who have never had a chance at a democratic system don't deserve to be horrible murdered because of that moron. Nor does anyone in surrounding areas deserve to get sick from fallout. We aren't going to nuke N. Korea and they know that. So why keep up the charade? Countries are either too small to nuke (we could beat them without it) or too big (they'd get us just as good as we get them).

Nuclear weapons ensure that no combat is taken after a warning is given, I have a masters in History in particular the study of the Cold War and all the evidence of the Cold War points to this aswell as the Cuban missile Crisis. These dictators are crazy but they aint ****ing stupid Kim Jong is looking tough for his people that's it IMO, in a similar way Khrushchev had to show a tough stance against the Yanks in order to show he was the suitable Premier at the time, both sides knew if one shoots both are dead so that keeps the status quo.

 

[johnnydawg68]

If it's not loooooooove, then it's the booooooomb, it's the bomb that will bring us together.

 

[steken1]

We're already being invaded by these immigrants. You can tell them because they all wear the same uniform. Anyone in a red coat is an insurgent that must be repelled. Think of our children dammit.

Fcuk the kids, save yourself!

 

[TheBlueGibbon]

Nuclear weapons ensure that no combat is taken after a warning is given, I have a masters in History in particular the study of the Cold War and all the evidence of the Cold War points to this aswell as the Cuban missile Crisis. These dictators are crazy but they aint ****ing stupid Kim Jong is looking tough for his people that's it IMO, in a similar way Khrushchev had to show a tough stance against the Yanks in order to show he was the suitable Premier at the time, both sides knew if one shoots both are dead so that keeps the status quo.

In that case why do you use a term, which is an outdated reference to British infantrymen, as an insult? As far as I'm aware, the only time a redcoat was used as an insult was during and immediately after the American Revolutionary War, towards those loyal to the British and those in what is now Canada. The only other potentially offensive use is in reference to Garibaldi's redshirts, who were nationalists trying to unify Italy, either that or you refer to the original Star Trek series where the person in the redshirt died every episode?

 

[Bluenose1995]

In that case why do you use a term, which is an outdated reference to British infantrymen, as an insult? As far as I'm aware, the only time a redcoat was used as an insult was during and immediately after the American Revolutionary War, towards those loyal to the British and those in what is now Canada. The only other potentially offensive use is in reference to Garibaldi's redshirts, who were nationalists trying to unify Italy, either that or you refer to the original Star Trek series where the person in the redshirt died every episode?

whoa whoa whoa Bluenose aint explaining himself to no one

 

[njligernj]

tl;dr warning ...

Nuclear weapons ensure that no combat is taken after a warning is given, I have a masters in History in particular the study of the Cold War and all the evidence of the Cold War points to this aswell as the Cuban missile Crisis.

I don't have a masters in history but what about all the proxy wars? The families of people who died in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan (Russia edition) etc probably didn't think it was that cold of a war.

The US has been at war almost all the time both during and after the cold war. You could make an argument that all nukes do is make sure the wars happen in proxy countries because the super-powers don't want anything on their own doorstep which would escalate to nuclear war or spur social unrest.

If you believe war is inevitable this could be a positive because proxy wars (while horrific) do have a lower death toll than all-out world wars; if you believe this has allowed war for profit to become a massive industry which requires wars as fuel for its economy then it means we get stuck in an endless cycle of war which won't end because the wars don't hurt people in the super-power countries enough to get them to pressure politicians to stop.

You could also believe both: that the nukes may have had this "positive" impact in the past but the world has changed and its no longer relevant. Nukes don't deter terrorists because there is no country to bomb after an attack.

These dictators are crazy but they aint ****ing stupid

Exactly. So they know we won't nuke them and risk cancer clouds floating all over South Korea and Japan (not to mention the questionable ethics of nuking N. Korea citizens who are living under a dictator).

Kim Jong is looking tough for his people that's it IMO, in a similar way Khrushchev had to show a tough stance against the Yanks in order to show he was the suitable Premier at the time, both sides knew if one shoots both are dead so that keeps the status quo.

This is different though -- N. Korea knows (or they should know) if they shoot they will probably miss and then they are getting shock and awed and invaded (or maybe just droned). There is no mutually assured destruction. The non-nuclear military and weapons from a single US state could flatten N. Korea a few times over.

I'm far from a war-monger but you could make an argument that morally speaking waiting for N. Korea to attack is pointless. He should be removed from power for his actions against his own citizens.

I don't deny that a lot of state building in the past has been woefully misguided and done more harm than good with unintended consequences. Some of the British and US methods in the middle east starting decades ago were so insanely stupid and wrong-headed it makes one weep.

However I'm not sure if intellectually it makes sense to stop doing it because of past failures. That's not how logic works. You learn, improve and try again. Sadly there might be more money to be made from sabre-rattling "madmen" enemies than actually helping human beings in the world so most of our discussion surrounds "could they attack us?" which is probably the wrong question.

Wait this is a thread about a man with no arms? Huh.