It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Quote by: Hermann Goering
originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
I think a tactical strike on more then one city is more likely. One nuke will not do anything, now hitting several east/west coast cities along with some in the middle like ABQ, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Dallas and Denver will disrupt everything at once. More sensible if nuking a country is sensible to begin with.
I don't see similarities but I do see the signs, people are taking sides, money is an issue, resources, land... it's all happing now and unless calmer minds prevail I'll see you on the other side.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
I agree the Germans got a raw deal for losing WW1, but so did the Soviet Union for losing the cold war.
Not as bad, but still they lost a lot of land just like Germany did. I guess when you watch this map you realize borders will always change with smaller regional conflicts, the smaller the conflict the smaller the change the bigger the conflict the bigger the change.