You made me laugh, thank you…..
Good that we disagree enough to hopefully have an informative exchange of views.
Let’s step through your response…. from the outset I can see that you believe that more military power means more peace,
such a simplification that it’s actually a distortion. My view is military power makes the protected territory of the beholder
a far more
A good analogy for my view would be: “Had a member of the audience happened to have a gun when the recent Colorado Cinema Massacre took place.”
Had this happened far fewer would have died when the lunatic came in, in fact (with the lunatic knowing this situation) the massacre may not even have
happened at all.
On the other hand: (if it was normal for everyone to be carrying guns, at all times everywhere) then this does not necessarily mean less people would
suffer gun murder, every year, in total. Comparisons between UK and US gun deaths have long indicated far more would die. On the other hand,
comparisons before and after Australia’s recent gun legislation indicate far fewer. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Nukes have not saved tens of millions of lives and only bring us closer to WW3, it’s not a deterrent it is an offensive power and simply
unacceptable for anyone to have knowing the consequences of its use.
Ok. So (if this is true) then why does the historical record severely
contradict it? Look at this other thread, and you’ll see I went through
history to show (how before nuclear weapons) bloody & costly wars between countries (that today possess them) were rampant –if not increasingly
epidemic, and yet (strangely enough!) for the last 67 years, every country to have gained possession of a nuke, has not suffered a war with another
country that also possess a nuke. www.abovetopsecret.com...
And what on earth, can make you so confident that had the world after WW2 been without the invention of the nukes, the heavily armed (& diametrically,
politically opposed East & West) would have refrained from warfare? Do note:
It did happen in the build-up to WW1 and it didn’t in the
build-up to WW2 either.
But ever since 1945, wars have only happened on
countries that don’t have them.
I believe your philosophy is so at odds with reality, that I readily predict even in 2045 there still will not have been a single armed war between a
set of nuclear weapons possessing nations. But perhaps you disagree? If so I would love to know your prediction of when a nuclear before 2045 might
happen, and what you base it on?
History is great for debasing false ideologies:
History repeats itself because it likes to, and it likes to for many reasons, (but
mostly) because the human brain hasn’t changed much in 10,000 years. So whenever history pauses-stops repeating itself, you should know something
fundamental (about world reality) has really changed.
I argue: That change (for this discussion) has come in the form of MAD making war (literally) mad. I argue that any combination of: Conventional
weapons, Large armies, Peace agreements, & Good intentions, did not make war mad enough (as is evidenced from the number of major armed conflicts,
between today’s nuclear possess, before the invention of nukes).
Once again my point remains – why does any country have to be ‘controlled or lead’ by the US?
Because the US and Western World
has a different foreign policy. Because they know, and is right to know, that whilst military might does not necessarily equal moral right, it does
(at least) acts as a way of bullying other nations into submission –regardless of whether it works when it is actually used.
Libya disarmed itself of all WMD’s immediately after seeing what had just happened Iraq (which I agree, and have always agreed, ever since joining
this site, has been a totally rotten idea & failure). Nevertheless: That is what Gaddafi did. And by unilaterally disarming his nation, he condemned
himself to either the Hague (or as it happened) death; and therefore Libya to its current turmoil & endlessly messy situation. To see this, you must
first look at (his inspiration) (Iraq) again…
Uninformed minds, often say: “It would have been better for the U.S to have destroyed Saddam’s government in 1991, instead of another war again,
in 2003”. What these people show they either do not know, or do not balance, is the fact (in 1991) Saddam had both chemical (and far more
alarmingly) biological weapons. Well….
Whenever a country is overthrown there is always an inevitable period of anarchy, in which numerous
weapons go astray. There is no way we wanted some irresponsible terrorist to walk into Saddam’s military bases with a van and few hundred dollars,
or even just find the place completely abandoned, and pick 1 or more biological weapons.
So: Saddam was left in power because he had WMD’s. Then once he was fully disarmed, and we were sure of it (through knowing the results of UN
inspections, some of whose team member, doubled-up as allied spies) he was promptly destroyed (when our own political situation was right i.e. after
911 and –the people “sheeple!” had been built-up with media propaganda i.e. tales created to induce fear).
Likewise: Today we put pressure on Iran to disarm itself of nuclear weapons technology. We put sanctions, we fund armed groups within the country that
we hope can turn into another Libya. And we well tell (just like we did with Saddam) “get rid of your WMD’s, and (despite our differences) you
will enjoy nothing but peace, trade, and prosperity”. Needless to say, our promise is not being believed by the Iranians! They might have been
foolish enough to believe us, had we actually honoured our promise to Saddam (or at least Gaddafi). But no, we didn’t!
On the upside:
When Iran finally tests an atomic bomb (or as is actually far more likely in its case, merely secretly shows us) (through the
diplomatic channels) it has one, you can then bet your life & pants that any war U.S-Iran war has become pure lunacy AND fantasy. I already think such
a war would be lunacy! (Iran already has biological weapons –more than enough to make Israel a land of empty houses with decaying corpses).
Iran with a nuclear bomb will be respected, and if it can avoid testing the device, you may find sanctions are lifted under some kind of peace deal
i.e. public rouse.
As this thread tells: I don’t think this is an ideal situation. I would much rather both Israel & Iran agreed to disarm, for the sake of the region
and each other (whilst to be realistic, getting guaranteed support against a First Strike).
Talking about Naïve, I don’t believe in any religion or god. I can see that you believe however that someone must be religious if they
don’t like killing and war?
On the contrary; I said I thought, the only way an Iranian government would launch a First Strike if they were
headed by a leader who actually believed in a God, and not only that but a God who would reward them. I also said I don’t think is the case today,
that (actually) (most) people high in Iran’s leadership simply use religion as a way of political control, and I believe this is so, because almost
any religious scholar will be aware they would go to hell, for many of the things they personally do (even by the standards of their own religion
I think it unlikely that “religious” situation in Iran will change too. I for the record am a Spiritualist, although (some in my view nutters)
would say “Satanist”. Putting it bluntly, I believe “God is reality and reality is God”. Also (solely in my opinion-experience) for all that
people of these rare, alternative beliefs, make up a very small proportion of a national population, they make-up a great many of The Heads of State
and other senior officials immediately beneath them. I certainly don’t believe in a basket with an endless supply of fish, and won’t until they
find it on some archaeological dig! I merely said you may as well as ask Jesus to return that basket, as an analogy for how unrealistic I think a
world without WMD’s (but peace) is.
You know what would happen if the world did not have WMD’s – peace, and if conflict did need to take place – the US would not be able to
hide behind its phallic power of distruction.
Without WMD’s the U.S, Russia, China and countless other nations would still have their
Military Industrial Complex’s. So even if there was no need for war, a “need” would be found (as is regularly the case).
You did not need to drop the bombs on civilians, you could have dropped one off the coast on a fleet of ships for example as a warning to end
Actually the fact it took not one, but two atomic bomb drops, to get the Japanese to surrender indicates otherwise. Hiroshima was
dropped on the 6th of August 1945. Despite losing an entire from just one bomb, the Japanese leadership insisted-convinced itself it was some kind of
So on the 9th of August a plutonium bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. But again the self-brainwashed, kamikaze, still Japanese leadership still dithered
and nearly rebelled against their emperor for wanting peace!!! This coup (called the Kyūjō Incident) was actually attempted on the 14th of August
Finally on the 15th of August (having been threatened with another U.S 3rd atomic strike –something the U.S did not actually have, as it had
actually temporarily run out) Japan surrendered. Your idea that Japan’s leadership would have been able to take seriously nuclear pyrotechnics as a
warning, is therefore completely fanciful. It’s probably built on “left-wing” lies I’ve heard before.
Two (not one) cities needed to be destroyed, and even
the threat from of third one did not stop that brainwashed Japanese military, commit from
trying to commit treason (punishable by death) against their supposedly beloved emperor, to continue, what even (to them) must have become a clearly,
totally futile, war. You urgently need to remember only a small part of world, thinks like you
(just as I also take into calculation the same)
Case in point…
Someone like you will reinvent the nuke? And be proud to conquer all pacifist countries????…. Well you sir, is precisely what is wrong with
Unfortunately there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people like me. And we are the habit of reaching high office for
many reason (not least) being prone to being more practical, than idealistic.
You can say people like me are what’s wrong with this world all you like, just as much as you can moan about earthquakes and weather storms.
Complain all you like, but it does not change everyone in the worlds opinions, and therefore it does not make my group of ideological thinking
And (if) you act as if it does, then that (actually) makes your own views guilty of nothing less than delusional. And political delusion be it (well
intentioned, like when a poorly armed Korea was invaded by a vicious Japan in 1901) or badly intentioned (like when Adolf went on the rampage
throughout Europe) has been a source of real death & destruction, far more than it ever has been of real peace.
(Like all followers of a political belief) my way of thinking has been shared by leaders ever since the dawn of mankind, and all projections are, it
will continue to be well into the distant future. Maybe you have something to say, that will prove that wrong? However…
The way I see it, my thinking has always been in government (across all nations, & cultures) far more than yours. Even if part of the world-culture
believes as you do, it hardly makes this part immune, from those bits that don’t! And (should this be the case) would that make your own ideology
far more idealist, than pragmatist? I.e. More as way of dreaming nice dreams, than finding honest solutions? –i.e. solutions that are “honest”
as in actually being workable enough to be wise
One Big Question
Will you agree with me, that if any at point in the future, a tyrant or aggressive rise in Chinese leadership (natural through the passage of time)
was to lead to an invasion of Australia: Then quite regardless whether nuclear weapons were used against Australia (or not)
No military action whatsoever should be used against China. Instead any response to this action should consist of entirely peaceful methods (even
though, the historical record also shows, a large country is more than capable of shrugging off, & ignoring all these peaceful methods, in all there
forms) i.e. take Germany, or Soviet Russia and Western Europe.
For the Record:
I do not support, nor have ever supported the way we conduct the (so-called) “war on terror” and I completely oppose
current Western efforts to impose our versions of democracy, on a tribal society. I confess that ideologically I’d like to think it would work, but
as a thinker, have looked at history seen that there is not a single case (of a Tribal Society anywhere on Earth) successfully, becoming a
democracy. You have to remember the British Empire tried too, and failed in every Tribal Society
it tried e.g. look at Zimbabwe
& Kenya today. There isn’t a case of a tribal society successfully becoming a democracy anywhere, the closest I’ve known is South Africa –today,
effectively, a one party state. So on this at least, we agree.