It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Didn't America Take Over the World (1945-1950)

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Great question! Forces us to deal with whether USA actually cares about human life and freedoms or if the military industrial complex saw reason to keep the ace in the bag... Many interesting things to consider like technology only being limited by production (plutonium development or crazy nazi research ats used to be all about before those who shall not be named). USA was clear to japan in their use of nuclear war and western nations have historically been the ones to adhere to "rules of engagement". What did they say that they would bomb a major city every 2 days until Japan capitulates? Sounds like production of A bombs wasn't very stressed... Why would they not guarantee a new world order then and there you're right... I genuinely believe America though religious in nature believes in freedom and capitalism.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
It's akin to George Bush Sr not wanting to go "all the way" to Baghdad



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It's akin to George Bush Sr not wanting to go "all the way" to Baghdad


It's not all he did. We were ordered to stop whacking key personnel and breaking things because it was getting to be too over the top. Plus we were ordered to stop f..ing up their infrastructure, and to not use some things that had just popped out of the lab that would have likely been immensely demoralizing, just because there wasn't any point to it anymore.

Sr was a closet softie. But yes, it's been my observation that the military, once your ass is truly stomped, starts to push back against further needless stompage.

Plus, in fairly serious simulations, you generally see the military teams aghast at the contractors and State Dept's solutions. We got into a pretty heated argument where State and we had sort of simul-proposed a particular solution and the military guys were horrified. Still, it would have worked.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Nuke Moscow and Hong Kong in 1948, and do they ever get nukes?


quoted to demonstrate the idiocy of this thread



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You could have nuked yourselves and saved the rest of the world from the warmongering and greed that spanned the last 71 years and counting.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Nuke Moscow and Hong Kong in 1948, and do they ever get nukes?


Why Hong Kong? That was a British Crown colony under Governor Alexander Grantham in 1948.

Perhaps you were trying for the Capitol of China instead.

This thread is just so out there. You talk of the death of millions like it is of no concern to your consciousness.

So, what city in China did you want to aim for?

P



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This thread is just so out there. You talk of the death of millions like it is of no concern to your consciousness.


Typical American attitude though, many think they have more right to be on this planet than others simply because they were born in America.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This thread is just so out there. You talk of the death of millions like it is of no concern to your consciousness.


Typical American attitude though, many think they have more right to be on this planet than others simply because they were born in America.


It is impractical due to logistics and man power. But the basic idea avoiding the possibility of Armageddon which could kill billions and end the possibility of all future generations is not wrong. Millions can die if it was necessary to save humanity itself. We came near Armageddon at several moments and it is still not out of the table.

The nukes won't be forever capable of ensuring M.A.D. once a way around M.A.D. is found,I expect a war to end all wars, and billions will probably die... and it is likely this century. Either that or enough power concentrates covertly to basically take over the world without notice before such happens.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This thread is just so out there. You talk of the death of millions like it is of no concern to your consciousness.


Typical American attitude though, many think they have more right to be on this planet than others simply because they were born in America.


The nukes won't be forever capable of ensuring M.A.D. once a way around M.A.D. is found,I expect a war to end all wars, and billions will probably die...


We're there now. Wait.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: JoshuaCox

At the end of WWII, notwithstanding our destruction of Japan with nuclear weapons, the US had the high moral ground. We brought the Nuremberg Trials and incorporated those principles into our legal code.


We did not want to take over the world, we wanted to enjoy the peace that was so hard won.

By 1947 the CIA had been created, and the moral high ground was quickly given away, taken away perhaps, by error and malicious humans.

50 some odd years after Nuremberg, our government rationalized and institutionalized torture, in violation of our legal code. Most americans embraced the torture, and today's POTUS wants to bring it back, assuming it ever left.

Time changes things.





Was it the right choice when global nuclear war is almost inevitable if you allow other great powers to have them??

What's more morally superior than using a dozen nukes to stop the fall of thousands??? Tens of thousands really. (I think we have like 20 thousand today, or at our height).


What isn't the moral high ground compared to that?


How does one DISALLOW another country from acquiring such weapons?

Destroy the world to prevent their development?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: JoshuaCox

At the end of WWII, notwithstanding our destruction of Japan with nuclear weapons, the US had the high moral ground. We brought the Nuremberg Trials and incorporated those principles into our legal code.


We did not want to take over the world, we wanted to enjoy the peace that was so hard won.

By 1947 the CIA had been created, and the moral high ground was quickly given away, taken away perhaps, by error and malicious humans.

50 some odd years after Nuremberg, our government rationalized and institutionalized torture, in violation of our legal code. Most americans embraced the torture, and today's POTUS wants to bring it back, assuming it ever left.

Time changes things.





Was it the right choice when global nuclear war is almost inevitable if you allow other great powers to have them??

What's more morally superior than using a dozen nukes to stop the fall of thousands??? Tens of thousands really. (I think we have like 20 thousand today, or at our height).


What isn't the moral high ground compared to that?


How does one DISALLOW another country from acquiring such weapons?

Destroy the world to prevent their development?



Nope just any nation state that refuses to submit..

And I really don't mean I want the US to rule the world.. whatever one nuclear power you have, is far better than having a dozen destined to destroy th planet.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This thread is just so out there. You talk of the death of millions like it is of no concern to your consciousness.


Typical American attitude though, many think they have more right to be on this planet than others simply because they were born in America.



The same thought experiment works with any nation as the one nuclear power.

Even nazi Germany ruling the planet is the lesser evil , compared to a major nuclear war between super powers..

Literally please think of a greater evil than that?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This thread is just so out there. You talk of the death of millions like it is of no concern to your consciousness.


Typical American attitude though, many think they have more right to be on this planet than others simply because they were born in America.


It is impractical due to logistics and man power. But the basic idea avoiding the possibility of Armageddon which could kill billions and end the possibility of all future generations is not wrong. Millions can die if it was necessary to save humanity itself. We came near Armageddon at several moments and it is still not out of the table.

The nukes won't be forever capable of ensuring M.A.D. once a way around M.A.D. is found,I expect a war to end all wars, and billions will probably die... and it is likely this century. Either that or enough power concentrates covertly to basically take over the world without notice before such happens.


I think it was logistically possible from 45-50. After that it wasn't, but with every other modern state smashed after ww2?!?!



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Nuke Moscow and Hong Kong in 1948, and do they ever get nukes?


Why Hong Kong? That was a British Crown colony under Governor Alexander Grantham in 1948.

Perhaps you were trying for the Capitol of China instead.

This thread is just so out there. You talk of the death of millions like it is of no concern to your consciousness.

So, what city in China did you want to aim for?

P



Because my Chinese history is rusty and brits have a funny accent.. obviously..

Jk


You talk about a thermonuclear global war wouldn't be worse than that...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Sure, we would prob have had to nuke Russia, China and I'm guessing at least one of the European powers doesn't give up without a fight...


Well I guess that beside the fact that such an action would have led to a nuclear winter that would most likely have killed off a huge chunk of life anywhere on the globe?

Weird logic really, if you kill off the world that means you took it over?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: BeneGesseritWitch
Great question! Forces us to deal with whether USA actually cares about human life and freedoms or if the military industrial complex saw reason to keep the ace in the bag... Many interesting things to consider like technology only being limited by production (plutonium development or crazy nazi research ats used to be all about before those who shall not be named). USA was clear to japan in their use of nuclear war and western nations have historically been the ones to adhere to "rules of engagement". What did they say that they would bomb a major city every 2 days until Japan capitulates? Sounds like production of A bombs wasn't very stressed... Why would they not guarantee a new world order then and there you're right... I genuinely believe America though religious in nature believes in freedom and capitalism.


No doubt, but with nuclear Armageddon being the alternative, should we have taken over?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You could have nuked yourselves and saved the rest of the world from the warmongering and greed that spanned the last 71 years and counting.




Still would have allowed everyone else to have nukes, even if America were removed from the equation. It is still either only have one nuclear power or sooner or later have a global nuclear war.

The nation that takes over is irrelevant..even if it were a nazi take over. It's the lesser of 2 evils.

I can literally think of nothing worse than 2 world powers launching 10,000 nukes at each other.
edit on 30-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You could have nuked yourselves and saved the rest of the world from the warmongering and greed that spanned the last 71 years and counting.



I can literally think of nothing worse than 2 world powers launching 10,000 nukes at each other.


Oh there is something worse, the doors opened by the powers of technological advancement. We're at a point where within decades the ability to create advanced manufacturing systems capable of replication and self-repair will be possible. Powered by advanced fully autonomous control software. If you realize that both biological immortality as well as computers directly interacting with the brain are also technological developments that will also likely happen this century...

You realize all of these developments combined allow for the possibility of both the absolute concentration of power, as well as the ability to have absolute control over the population. You can imagine humans unable to die by their own hand or by aging or disease, who're born connected to machines where every sensation, every thought, every single thing is monitored and controlled from birth.

All it would take is for a sadistic group or entity to have control of the system, and a living hell can be created on earth. A hell inescapable even by natural causes of death, where people are imprisoned without realizing it. A North Korea to the thousandth power, where those in power have godlike power over their subjects within virtual reality, and can use them as their play things.

Technology, knowledge, eventually allows man to become as god, opening both the doors of heaven and hell.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Because America was horrified by what the two bombs we dropped did, let alone dropping more to install an American Empire...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Because America was horrified by what the two bombs we dropped did, let alone dropping more to install an American Empire...


I agree with you, but should we have knowing the alternative is an almost inevitable global nuclear war between the great powers??



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join