WWIII has begin?

Jiro said:
by your logic - North Korea would have nuked Japan/South Korea already. Pakistan would have nuked India already. Iran would have nuked Israel already. and..... Soviet would have nuked us already.

but they didn't...

the only country who has nuked other country is USA.
Click to expand...
You aren't using logic at all.

For one thing, when America dropped the nuclear bombs, no other country had any, so there was no fear of similar retaliation.

Now, if any country uses nuclear weapons, they have to fear retaliation in kind.

Also, because of subsequent alliances, each country has to consider retaliation from their target country's allies.

Logistically, countries that share borders are less likely to use nuclear weapons against each other because their air and water may also suffer from the radiation and other effects. Obviously, that wasn't a problem when America bombed Japan. India/Pakistan or N.Korea/S.Korea have that potential problem.

Russia didn't send nuclear missiles our way because they knew we had even more that we could send back. Also, it was a "cold" war between them and us, not an active declared war like WWII.

There are so many differences in circumstances that there is no logical comparison.
 
Reba said:
You aren't using logic at all.

For one thing, when America dropped the nuclear bombs, no other country had any, so there was no fear of similar retaliation.

Now, if any country uses nuclear weapons, they have to fear retaliation in kind.

Also, because of subsequent alliances, each country has to consider retaliation from their target country's allies.

Logistically, countries that share borders are less likely to use nuclear weapons against each other because their air and water may also suffer from the radiation and other effects. Obviously, that wasn't a problem when America bombed Japan. India/Pakistan or N.Korea/S.Korea have that potential problem.

Russia didn't send nuclear missiles our way because they knew we had even more that we could send back. Also, it was a "cold" war between them and us, not an active declared war like WWII.

There are so many differences in circumstances that there is no logical comparison.
Click to expand...

all above are a convenient cop-out to me. It still doesn't justify the use of nuclear weapon. It's equivalent to cops car-chasing after FBI #1 Most Wanted Man (Osama bin Laden) across a crowded park, running over civilians in the name of peace.
 
Jiro said:
all above are a convenient cop-out to me. It still doesn't justify the use of nuclear weapon. It's equivalent to cops car-chasing after FBI #1 Most Wanted Man (Osama bin Laden) across a crowded park, running over civilians in the name of peace.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't "Justify" the use of a nuclear weapon in this day and age....any age really. I think a lot of people believe it wasn't necessary and it was not justified to drop on Japan ...twice.

Reba's on point...the consequences of using a nuke escalated to full-blown risk of societies collapsing once USA plus another country got it. That's it...I mean there's no real reason for NK to develop and actually use one. It's a tool of fear and has benefited individuals and countries of much power and influence over the years.


so why didn't we nuke tora bora?
 
Jiro said:
all above are a convenient cop-out to me. It still doesn't justify the use of nuclear weapon. It's equivalent to cops car-chasing after FBI #1 Most Wanted Man (Osama bin Laden) across a crowded park, running over civilians in the name of peace.
Click to expand...
Maybe you call it cop-outs but those are the historical facts.

Your car chase analogy is weird, to say the least.
 
Jiro said:
all above are a convenient cop-out to me. It still doesn't justify the use of nuclear weapon. It's equivalent to cops car-chasing after FBI #1 Most Wanted Man (Osama bin Laden) across a crowded park, running over civilians in the name of peace.
Click to expand...

to prevent him from committing mass murder?

Lets use a simple equation:

Cop A runs over civilians B, C, D, E

FBI agent runs over civilians F, G, H, I, J and K

If they do not do so, Bad Guy L will kill 3,000 people.

Should Cop A and FBI agent allow 3,000 people to be killed so that civilians B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J and K can live?
 
Steinhauer said:
to prevent him from committing mass murder?

Lets use a simple equation:

Cop A runs over civilians B, C, D, E

FBI agent runs over civilians F, G, H, I, J and K

If they do not do so, Bad Guy L will kill 3,000 people.

Should Cop A and FBI agent allow 3,000 people to be killed so that civilians B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J and K can live?
Click to expand...

other way around....you're looking to the future...he's looking to the past...

"If Cop A spots bin Laden and he's wanted for killing 3k people...how many people is Cop A willing to kill?"....is that the question you're trying to ask?...
 
Steinhauer said:
to prevent him from committing mass murder?

Lets use a simple equation:

Cop A runs over civilians B, C, D, E

FBI agent runs over civilians F, G, H, I, J and K

If they do not do so, Bad Guy L will kill 3,000 people.
Click to expand...
His scenario is ridiculous and not worth developing.

Is OBL on foot and the cops driving the cars aren't able to dodge the civilians? Or is OBL in his car, mowing down the civilians that are in his way, with the cops behind him? Or maybe OBL is dodging civilians because he's riding a crotch rocket?

How does that relate to one nation bombing another when they both are at war with each other?

It's just nonsense.
 
craigm26 said:
other way around....you're looking to the future...he's looking to the past...

"If Cop A spots bin Laden and he's wanted for killing 3k people...how many people is Cop A willing to kill?"....is that the question you're trying to ask?...
Click to expand...

No. Obama and his ilk have not stopped making plans to kill every American they can.
 
Reba said:
His scenario is ridiculous and not worth developing.

Is OBL on foot and the cops driving the cars aren't able to dodge the civilians? Or is OBL in his car, mowing down the civilians that are in his way, with the cops behind him? Or maybe OBL is dodging civilians because he's riding a crotch rocket?

How does that relate to one nation bombing another when they both are at war with each other?

It's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

copping out, I see. :dunno:
 
Reba said:
Maybe you call it cop-outs but those are the historical facts.

Your car chase analogy is weird, to say the least.
Click to expand...

historical fact - Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
historical fact - 2 atomic bombs were dropped in japan
historical fact - Japan surrendered

political opinion - to prevent more lives from prolonged wars
public opinion - extremely controversial on USA's ethics of the use of nuclear weapon especially on civilians

result - 1960's civil rights movement which led to gradual nuclear disarmament
result - 1992, Yeltsin announced Russia to never target US cities with nukes
result - 2010, Obama announced revamping American nuclear strategy
 
Reba said:
His scenario is ridiculous and not worth developing.

Is OBL on foot and the cops driving the cars aren't able to dodge the civilians? Or is OBL in his car, mowing down the civilians that are in his way, with the cops behind him? Or maybe OBL is dodging civilians because he's riding a crotch rocket?

How does that relate to one nation bombing another when they both are at war with each other?

It's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

Jiro is trying to discern the difference between the Japanese Civilians that were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki vs. that of the soldiers who were attacking Americans.
 
Steinhauer said:
to prevent him from committing mass murder?

Lets use a simple equation:

Cop A runs over civilians B, C, D, E

FBI agent runs over civilians F, G, H, I, J and K

If they do not do so, Bad Guy L will kill 3,000 people.

Should Cop A and FBI agent allow 3,000 people to be killed so that civilians B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J and K can live?
Click to expand...
no.

by your logic - your post above is a direct contradiction to your post in police brutality thread.

my logic (and stance) remains same for most scenarios. You conveniently switch side as according to scenario. That disturbs me.
 
Steinhauer said:
Jiro is trying to discern the difference between the Japanese Civilians that were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki vs. that of the soldiers who were attacking Americans.
Click to expand...

um...... no?
 
Jiro said:
no.

by your logic - your post above is a direct contradiction to your post in police brutality thread.

my logic (and stance) remains same for most scenarios. You conveniently switch side as according to scenario. That disturbs me.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. Watch the video again. The assailant ran over a cop. The cops did not run over civilians. They attacked the assailant and THAT was police brutality.

I think you may have trouble discerning warfare and soldiers from LEO.
 
Steinhauer said:
No. Obama and his ilk have not stopped making plans to kill every American they can.
Click to expand...

ok...really????????????????

I must be dead then. You too. I'm not going to work tomorrow. Screw the 40 labors give me 40 ounces.
 
craigm26 said:
ok...really????????????????

I must be dead then. You too. I'm not going to work tomorrow. Screw the 40 labors give me 40 ounces.
Click to expand...

:cheers:

typo .... Osama.

geez why can't we just have a president named BOB?!!!
 
Back
Top