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: 16
11
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: JoshuaCox




For the umpteenth time, you nuke the British first, to stop their silly accents from taking hold and bring about an American only dr who.... it's for the species


You aren't even serious in your own thread's.
STOP! TROLL ALERT!!!!!



Only when people act like grammer nazis, or pretend some small insignificant piece of their point being incorrect, some how invalidates their entire point.

Those people shouldn't be taken seriously.


Weather Britain owned Hong Kong,or if it was the capital of china in 1950 is irrelevant to the Op.

Quite trying to deflect the actual topic onto BS.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Yea I don't think anyone would disagree about that, and people forget WW1 wasn't the good vs evil that ww2 was.


This shows to me why I think you're really not thinking things through before coming up with some silly "what if" threads.
First you would have to define what good or evil is then move on to how you measure the events during and after both wars. Good luck with that. You completely ignored the valid point that a Hitler wouldn't have arisen if it wasn't for the way Germany was treated after WW1.

You can make these baiting threads all you like but you need to add some substance and maybe even links to support your conclusions and responses.



Hitler was an example, not the point..

It is irrelevant what nation state were to be the one power and irrelevant who it's leader is. Taking a global nuclear war off the table is still the lesser evil.

This isn't a bs "what if" I pulled out of my butt, but a very real option put before Truman and a hotly debated historical thought experiment.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 123143
a reply to: JoshuaCox

We certainly should have stomped the Soviets into the ground, but no one listened to Patton.

We've wasted trillions on the Cold War. Retarded.


We couldn't have stopped there if avoiding an Armageddon is the goal.


No one else would have challenged us. We creamed the Krauts and the Bombs insured there'd be no trouble from the Japanese quarter.

There was no one left but the Soviets who would have gotten uppity.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: 123143

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 123143
a reply to: JoshuaCox

We certainly should have stomped the Soviets into the ground, but no one listened to Patton.

We've wasted trillions on the Cold War. Retarded.


We couldn't have stopped there if avoiding an Armageddon is the goal.


No one else would have challenged us. We creamed the Krauts and the Bombs insured there'd be no trouble from the Japanese quarter.

There was no one left but the Soviets who would have gotten uppity.



No one left yet, lol. Once we nuke the Russians and decree a ban on nuclear technology , some of the other great powers would turn on us. Our reaction to that would decide everyone else's reaction.

If we nukes them the world might submit, go soft and they all start programs anyway.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well, Trump is not the issue. The dangerous types are the radical Muslims who thrive on hate and violence and North Korea where that child murders anyone who displeases him. They are a far greater threat than the West due to their, literally, insane fanaticism.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: 123143
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well, Trump is not the issue. The dangerous types are the radical Muslims who thrive on hate and violence and North Korea where that child murders anyone who displeases him. They are a far greater threat than the West due to their, literally, insane fanaticism.



All the world's leaders with the power to launch in a moments notice are issues..

They could snap, or just be given bad info.

American generals have told American presidents it was time to launch 2 dozen times probubally. Yet so far even the civilian presidents have said "No".

Imagaine JFK telling some 4star uber combat veteran that he knows better and we are not going to launch...


I'm not at all sure the world survives the first time a multi-star general tells trump it is time to launch a preemptive strike and it is up to him to say no....



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The West isn't who we should be worrying about. There are cultures living in the Dark Ages, the equivalent of cavemen, who have proven they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.

The West has proven that they can be.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: 123143
The West isn't who we should be worrying about. There are cultures living in the Dark Ages, the equivalent of cavemen, who have proven they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.

The West has proven that they can be.



The west has only been "trustable" for what? The last 2 generations top?!?!


Hitler was western...

Espeacially democracies were our leaders are not chosen by merit, but by popularity contest.

If you allow ANY TWO super powers that are competitors to have nukes , them going to war is historically inevitable long term.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Seems there has always been found a way to counter new weapons.
One side will gain a technological advantage.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Seems there has always been found a way to counter new weapons.
One side will gain a technological advantage.




Not in the foreseeable.. you don't need 20,00 nicked to destroy the world. It is for redundancy... that way even if you stop half of them, the other half is more than required.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Not in the foreseeable.. you don't need 20,00 nicked to destroy the world. It is for redundancy... that way even if you stop half of them, the other half is more than required.


Aliens...

They are in Antarctica now negotiating...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 31-1-2017 by D8Tee because: doesn't have to be filled out, it's a lie!



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 123143
The West isn't who we should be worrying about. There are cultures living in the Dark Ages, the equivalent of cavemen, who have proven they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.

The West has proven that they can be.


The west has only been "trustable" for what? The last 2 generations top?!?!

Hitler was western...

Espeacially democracies were our leaders are not chosen by merit, but by popularity contest.

If you allow ANY TWO super powers that are competitors to have nukes , them going to war is historically inevitable long term.


This is blatant doom porn.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Not in the foreseeable.. you don't need 20,00 nicked to destroy the world. It is for redundancy... that way even if you stop half of them, the other half is more than required.


Aliens...

They are in Antarctica now negotiating...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



We better hope them, or the illuminati, or some other secret force actually runs things, lol.

So that there is really only one nuclear power and we just don't know it.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
All your base are belong to us



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 123143

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 123143
The West isn't who we should be worrying about. There are cultures living in the Dark Ages, the equivalent of cavemen, who have proven they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.

The West has proven that they can be.


The west has only been "trustable" for what? The last 2 generations top?!?!

Hitler was western...

Espeacially democracies were our leaders are not chosen by merit, but by popularity contest.

If you allow ANY TWO super powers that are competitors to have nukes , them going to war is historically inevitable long term.


This is blatant doom porn.



Some times reality is doom porn...

Where do you think we got the fallout shelter craze of the 1960s??? Because before then humans had never had the threat of Armageddon hanging over their heads...


Their children learned to live with the threat.

Our generation forgets the threat is even there.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 123143

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 123143
The West isn't who we should be worrying about. There are cultures living in the Dark Ages, the equivalent of cavemen, who have proven they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.

The West has proven that they can be.


The west has only been "trustable" for what? The last 2 generations top?!?!

Hitler was western...

Espeacially democracies were our leaders are not chosen by merit, but by popularity contest.

If you allow ANY TWO super powers that are competitors to have nukes , them going to war is historically inevitable long term.


This is blatant doom porn.


Some times reality is doom porn...

Where do you think we got the fallout shelter craze of the 1960s??? Because before then humans had never had the threat of Armageddon hanging over their heads...

Their children learned to live with the threat.

Our generation forgets the threat is even there.


Some of us don't run around hysterically screaming the sky is falling. Young people these days are too emotional.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: 123143

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt should not rule ones life.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: 123143

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 123143

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 123143
The West isn't who we should be worrying about. There are cultures living in the Dark Ages, the equivalent of cavemen, who have proven they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.

The West has proven that they can be.


The west has only been "trustable" for what? The last 2 generations top?!?!

Hitler was western...

Espeacially democracies were our leaders are not chosen by merit, but by popularity contest.

If you allow ANY TWO super powers that are competitors to have nukes , them going to war is historically inevitable long term.


This is blatant doom porn.


Some times reality is doom porn...

Where do you think we got the fallout shelter craze of the 1960s??? Because before then humans had never had the threat of Armageddon hanging over their heads...

Their children learned to live with the threat.

Our generation forgets the threat is even there.


Some of us don't run around hysterically screaming the sky is falling. Young people these days are too emotional.



The young these days have forgotten the threat exists..

The best think we could to is be aware of the threats, espeacially since we elect some brand new dice roll every 4 years..


The treat is far greater today than it was in the 60s. There are 10 times as many nations with nukes, that are thousands of times more powerful.


Sure it's not as sexy as Antarctic aliens, but it's actually real.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The treat is far greater today than it was in the 60s. There are 10 times as many nations with nukes

Can you back up that claim?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The treat is far greater today than it was in the 60s. There are 10 times as many nations with nukes

Can you back up that claim?



Absolutely..

In the 50's there was only 2 nuclear powers and the most powerful bomb was (I think ) 10 megatons.

Today there are a dozen nuclear states with their most powerful bombs being 100 megatons.

Back then America only had about 300 weapons and the Russians had about 150...

Today (atleast the superpowers) have at least 20,000 + EACH?!?


Neither world leader wanted a nuclear then either..
edit on 31-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join