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

a reply to: Vector99

How do you know of the "Russian deadhand?"

a reply to: Phage

From researching history.

a reply to: Vector99

Historically, how often has the Russian deadhand been employed?

a reply to: Phage

obviously never

a reply to: Vector99

I thought not.
So, what is the historical basis of your claim that there is such a protocol?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

I thought not.
So, what is the historical basis of your claim that there is such a protocol?

What would you say is an acceptable source?

a reply to: Phage

It makes sense they would say they have something like..they were behind in the ability to deliver potential weapons.
Is it true?..only the shadow know's

1. Public Opinion-Americans were a lot less imperialistic than their european brethren. Who knows how many years the US would have waited if they were not attacked in pearl harbor. The US did not have the stomach for land grabbing wars

2. Were not in a good position. If the US was connected by land to Europe perhaps they would have taken it to the soviets. The US and the soviets knew they were not going to be friends once this was over.

3. Communist infiltration of US govt. McCarthy has gotten one of the biggest smear jobs in history. Communist in the US government were deceiving US leaders on what was really going on especially in china. China could have turned out differently but the guys giving intel were communist themselves. One was even caught in a sting giving government info to the communist newspaper.
It is pretty sickening and scary to think about. The world was falling to communism very quickly after WW2.
The USA would have played it differently if the government and media was not partially compromised.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Ok, say you nuke Moscow...

What's stopping the Russians from developing the bomb elsewhere?

On grounds of morality, what's stopping a Canadian and Mexican invasion?

You can decimate cities and military bases but even nuclear weapons are not cost effective once you just throw them about attempting to quash opposition. Especially in the time frame you suggested.

I also think you overestimated US military might of the time and that's regardless of the morality of what you suggest.

To this day we have never dropped the bomb on a major city, do you have any idea just how much a city would burn and the resulting pollution associated with it? Now imagine 5 or 10.

It quickly becomes detrimental...

Another point to make is military assets are never exactly concentrated in one location, you'd need at least 10-20 bombs for one nation like the UK for instance.

The only way it could work is via genocide, Americans have no stomach for such things. Hitler was a piece of work but even he didn't try decimating the lands he conquered, do you know why?

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Ok, say you nuke Moscow...

What's stopping the Russians from developing the bomb elsewhere?

On grounds of morality, what's stopping a Canadian and Mexican invasion?

You can decimate cities and military bases but even nuclear weapons are not cost effective once you just throw them about attempting to quash opposition. Especially in the time frame you suggested.

I also think you overestimated US military might of the time and that's regardless of the morality of what you suggest.

To this day we have never dropped the bomb on a major city, do you have any idea just how much a city would burn and the resulting pollution associated with it? Now imagine 5 or 10.

It quickly becomes detrimental...

Another point to make is military assets are never exactly concentrated in one location, you'd need at least 10-20 bombs for one nation like the UK for instance.

The only way it could work is via genocide, Americans have no stomach for such things. Hitler was a piece of work but even he didn't try decimating the lands he conquered, do you know why?

And every consequence you just listed , including nuking a large city or 3 would be dwarfed by a nuclear war between ANY 2 major powers..


Assuming you knew you could take control and stop production of nukes by anyone else after 1945. How many civilians are worth the GLOBAL nuclear war your preventing by ensuring there is only one nuclear power??

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

I thought not.
So, what is the historical basis of your claim that there is such a protocol?

What would you say is an acceptable source?

You have not provided any source as yet.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Phage

It makes sense they would say they have something like..they were behind in the ability to deliver potential weapons.
Is it true?..only the shadow know's

As opposed to US protocols?

a reply to: Phage

I think it does sound a bit far fetched, an accident waiting to happen.
I have not studied U.S. protocols..I would imagine the subs at sea in both cases are the true deadman..I'm sure some or most run autonomously with a basic plan or mission.
Just my guess.

a reply to: vonclod

I would imagine the subs at sea in both cases are the true deadman..

Based on a study of "history" or movies?

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

I thought not.
So, what is the historical basis of your claim that there is such a protocol?

What would you say is an acceptable source?

You have not provided any source as yet.

Yea, when it comes to you I prefer to get my ducks in a row.

You know damn well the deadhand is a real thing, so what would you like me to present as evidence that is has, and still is, in effect?

Again. What is a credible source on the matter for you?

It's late, i don't want to play that back and forth tonite.

a reply to: Phage

Honestly a bit of both probably, it stick's in my memory for some reason.
I have been watching a lot of docu's on subs as of late, and the idea of a deadman has not been brought up..but implied that if it goes bad the big subs would be the last line of defence..due to them being on the move and somewhat autonomous.

a reply to: Vector99

You know damn well the deadhand is a real thing

Actually, I don't know that.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

A nuclear exchange between two nations ends humanity as we know it. That's guaranteed since the 60's, maybe mid 50's.

Again, if the US started nuclear attacks against perceived enemies it would soon come to the same conclusion.

A world ill-fitted for human occupation.

Again, what's stopping an invasion by Canada and Mexico?

Why didn't Hitler kill every French, Belgian or other populations he controlled?

It's all fun and games till people get killed?

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: JoshuaCox

What was the state of human rights and intelligence at that period?

Total crap lol...

Well maybe not intelligence , but 1950's America wasn't exactly known for its tolerance of different cultures lol.

Yet, it is still known as "The Greatest Generation".... why? Look at the sacrifices made by Americans in the 40's. How many of us died to free Europe?

We are but a shadow of what THEY were.

Said every generation ever.. about its preceding generation.

I served my country for 21 years. I NEVER, in my 21 years had to deal with the conditions that they did. What they went through is beyond comprehension.

That is truth....

And they didn't have to deal with WW 1 conditions and they didn't have to deal with the civil war. And they didn't have to deal with the revolutionary war......

It's been the same for every generation since the renaissance...

Because we haven't had a dark age since then.

If I have learned one "truth" it is this....

Americans will fight for freedom, and we will fight at every turn. That is FACT. Bank on it.

We don't back down, and we don't lose. Ever.

Yet..

Nuclear war with a major power might dampen that fighting spirit..

Nope... as long as I draw breath, I will fight.

We also have 2 Belgian Malinois, and they will KILL any trespassers.... including Gov't troops.

The Government likes to "send in the dogs".... well, we have the same dogs, with the same training.

Our Belgians are both over 70 lbs, and they are very well trained (My wife is a Master Trainer)....

So, no matter what... I say "bring it on"

Your dogs don't survive a nuclear war.. if they do you have to eat them for food..

Feel like crossing an ocean to fight a war??

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

You know damn well the deadhand is a real thing

Actually, I don't know that.

I've heard that the commands given to nuclear submarines tends to sober up newly appointed heads of state.

Not exactly a dead hand, though I'd think if things went quiet they'll launch and then bugger off to the Hebrides or something?