Will There Ever be A Nuclear War?

I'm not sure what you are saying here since you didn't quote directly what you are responding to with your responses.

But...I think you don't understand the role of nukes. They aren't something you just fire into any confrontation. I don't remember the US declaring war on any nuclear power after WW2. They may have been involved in small skirmishes, and other than that they were simply acting through other, smaller nations, but small skirmishes do not authenticate a nuclear response.

Judging by the politics surrounding them, nukes are a weapon of last resort. Something you use when there are no other options, and it's generally a defensive piece. I don't think the US has ben involved in too many defensive campaigns.

 

I would hardly consider the Pusan Perimeter a "Small Skirmish". In that the entire 8th US Army (1st Cavalry Division, 2nd Infantry Division, 24th Infantry Division, 25th Infantry Division, 1st Provisional Marine Brigade), with over 40,000 US military members trapped in a shrinking battle zone and close to being totally destroyed a "small skirmish". We came dangerously close to a disaster, and the use of a nuke was being seriously considered.

If the landings at Inchon had failed, that probably would have been the only way to prevent the 8th US Army from being totally destroyed. And that would have made the loss of US forces in the Philippines in WWII look like a minor skirmish.

Next to the Cuban Missile Crisis, that was the closest we had ever come to using atomic weapons after WWII ended.

And yes, trust me when I say I know very well the role of nukes. They are a political weapon, and have absolutely no place in the battlefield.

 

Cuban Missile Crisis and.....ABLE ARCHER 83.

LINK...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

Very close to being WWIII.

AboveAlpha

 

Late 1983 was a very rough year in US-Soviet relations, and for many things all combined.

During the last half of that year we had KAL 007, Grenada, the Beirut Barracks bombing, and a great many things had tensions rising more then they had since 1962. Thankfully it allowed Reagan and Gorbachev to reign in the insanty and bring more peacefull and less tense relations.

 

Oh my....

I read your response. It was not easy. I thank you for reading my post.

(Good God)

I live in one of those small towns with a 9-11 memorial piece of real-estate: seven names. The Catholic Church down the street has a large 9-11 memorial enclosed area. There are hundreds of towns like mine.

This year I went to Little League games where my nephew was on a team with a boy whose Father died on that day and I’ve looked into his Mother’s eyes when we spoke and I was mute. The boy must have been a newborn in 2001. These people live in an adjacent State to mine.

When will you right-side up? I’m going to put you on ignore if you post something about this subject that is similar to the above.

 

I may not agree with you on some things Scherado....but I agree with you here!

I live in Massachusetts home of Logan Airport and I KNEW a few people on those PLANES!!!

I also KNEW a couple of people who died in the Pentagon as well as 3 people who died when the Twin Towers or WWTC's came down.

For another member to post something as insensitive and outright IDIOTIC as this person has...well...I can't even find the words to discuss it!

AboveAlpha...p.s...DISGUSTED!!!

 

Well said and you have hidden that very well. Thank you for revealing that.

My Sister's husband flew out of Boston that day and there was some time when we did not know....

 

The Korean War was not something the the US, itself, was threatened by. The US chose to intervene there, sent troops overseas, and the North Koreans were not declaring war on America as an initiative, it was a response to America coming into the war on the side of South Korea. Even so, employing a nuke here would have been insane. And given the casualties, you know the taboo against firing a nuke was a strong one. It's the whole reason behind the tension of the Cuban Missile crisis. Firing a nuke would have broken a nuclear ceasefire (though teh US was the only one that fired).

Because of the politics and the threat of mass-annihilation, nukes are used as a deterring threat. Between the official nuclear powers, it's like a perpetual Mexican standoff, and modern tech has made the trigger quite light. If one person fires, theres a good chance that it will lead to everyone firing. There is no win for anyone who fires a nuke. They are most advantageous as being a deterrent that prevents direct conflict between super powers. They will act out through other nations, or fence with each others economy or such, but there will never be a direct military conflict between nuclear super powers that drags the two into open war. At least, there hasn't been. The future is unknown.

I think I did say that besides those people who had family or friends who were lost, no one really cares. I suppose I should apologize for being calous, but just because their is a 9/11 memorial in a town, doesn't mean the whole town remains deeply troubled by this event. Maybe at the time it was a shocker, yeah. I was deeply shocked too. But at the moment, it is a fading date in history.

But, perhaps I am wrong, and there are people all over the country who carry emotional scars from it. Who knows...My main point was that it does little to erode US power or authority. It actually did the opposite.

 

Disagreed. That's like saying you and I shouldn't help a neighbor down the block fight a wild fire because our homes aren't currently threatened.

Korea was the first of the proxy wars in the decades long Cold War. While the Domino Theory of Communism is overused it is nevertheless true.

While I lean Libertarian, one of the biggest problems I have with the LP platform is their stance on national defense. Ron Paul was both isolationist and, IMO, naive in his beliefs about international politics. Waiting until the enemy is actually on our beaches before doing anything to stop them is extremely stupid. It's why FDR supported Britain and the USSR with Lend-Lease rather than wait until the Nazis showed up in New York.

 

I'm not sure of what you are saying? It's okay to invade a nation because they want to be Communists? Korea had nothing to do with the US. China is Communist. Did China invade the US? Did other Communist nations try to invade the US. I understand the US tried to make it look like Cuba was going to invade the US...so they could have a good reason for invading Cuba because they didn't like them being Communist either...

I don't see a war of necessity there, unless it was to prevent obsructions to American global power.

 

Your assertion that South Korea wanted to be communist is incorrect. You might want to read more on history before declaring that the sole interests of the United States was "global power".

http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war
On June 25, 1950, the Korean War began when some 75,000 soldiers from the North Korean People’s Army poured across the 38th parallel, the boundary between the Soviet-backed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the north and the pro-Western Republic of Korea to the south. This invasion was the first military action of the Cold War. By July, American troops had entered the war on South Korea’s behalf. As far as American officials were concerned, it was a war against the forces of international communism itself. After some early back-and-forth across the 38th parallel, the fighting stalled and casualties mounted with nothing to show for them. Meanwhile, American officials worked anxiously to fashion some sort of armistice with the North Koreans. The alternative, they feared, would be a wider war with Russia and China–or even, as some warned, World War III. Finally, in July 1953, the Korean War came to an end. In all, some 5 million soldiers and civilians lost their lives during the war. The Korean peninsula is still divided today.

If anything, as we did in Vietnam, the United States wussed out. Instead of pushing forward into WWIII, we went the more peaceful route of using only the force necessary to stop the attack but not pushing through to eliminate the attacker.

 

I pretty much ignoring UDC now. Not sure if is just a young arrogant who thinks he knows everything, or a troll. But either way I am tired of butting my head up against somebody who has no idea of what he is talking about.

He talks about the "Taboo of Nuclear Weapons", even though the Soviets had only had theirs for a year at this time. And a great many military leaders were stating publically that we should use them.

And on how "By July, American troops had entered the war on South Korea’s behalf". Actually, we had been involved since Day 1, we already had members of the US military in South Korea when the war started. This is because it had already been decided at the Potsdam Conference that Korea would be divided, and that the United States would give assistance to the South, while the Soviet Union gave assistance to the North. This was later affirmed by the United Nations.

So the United States had no choice in the matter. It was mandated by at least 2 Treaties as well as by the UN that the United States assist South Korea. And he also seems to have failed to notice that it was not just the US, but the United Nations that backed South Korea. A total of 22 nations sent troops to fight in this conflict on the side of South Korea (the only nations that backed North Korea was the PRC and USSR).

And reading back through some of his posts... I am guessing young, probably not even of drinking age yet. Talking of "nuclear standoff", when it is doubtful that the Soviets could have even used one at the time.

 

There is only one wrong: whoever does it first. Also, there is nothing wrong with punitive damages. Otherwise, a bank robber would just have to give the money back and we'd have to let him go.

Islam made a decapitation strike. We should nuke Mecca and take all Muslim oil. You can try making the point that the Crusaders, etc. means that we did it to them first. But it is a weak point and only weaklings would even give it consideration. If you had tried making the same kind of excuses for Japan, you would have universally been told to shut up if not worse.

Please don't get conceited about mindlessly repeating what you're told to think. You think you have all this powerful authority behind you, so it makes you feel powerful. But you're just a mind slave and are licking your chains with all your snide remarks.

 

Muzzie-lovers are traitors, but they are also cowards. Patriots can safely ignore them and save their bullets for the sleeper cells, putting them to sleep before they wake up and carry out their assignments. We, of course, also have to change the government into one that would confiscate Muslim oil and nuke Mecca.

 

Whatever keeps your boat floating, dude. Just watch out for someone not nuking you in the process.

 

Well, excuse me if I get a little ticked off now.

Please feel free to call me a traitor and coward. But also feel free to keep as far away from me as possible - like Tierra del Fuego.

As far as a "traitor", I have been proudly wearing the uniform of my nation for over 16 years now. So please come up and see me if you think I am a traitor.

As for a coward, hard to do that when you are in uniform. And have done several deployments, and rejoined the military at the age of 42, knowing we were at war and I was going to get deployed.

So with all due respect, (*)(*)(*)(*). You do not know much of anything other then being angry and bigoted.

 

Well, one, I was talking about Noth Korea wanting to be Communist, or the fear by the US that it would become communist.

Two, I don't understand where Communism being an evil threat becomes a valid idea.

Three, North Korea invading South Korea has nothing to do with the United States. There was no existential threat.

Four. Only an idiot would have deployed nuclear weapons, which is why they didn't, regardless the loss.

 

That's such a tired excuse. Being a soldier does not mean that you are brave, honorable, or a patriot. Not that those people don't exist, but there are also rapists, theives, murderers, and the like in the military as well. A soldier is no different from anyone else. The mere fact that you exchange your life for a paycheck does not grant you sainthood either.

At the least, they give you a gun, and you do what you are told...

 

Maybe in your backyard; not in front of a Judge.

A jail-term sentence is not a “damage”.

Islam is a religion. It does not exist higher or broader than an abstraction. People “practice” religions; some violate laws and common decency with a head-full of dogma; they should be arrested or shot where they stand if that is indicated.

That’s funny. I’m sure even those here who despise me don’t think I mindlessly repeat anything.

“Licking my chains”--lol--you DO need therapy.

 

Average soldier is more brave, honorable, and patriotic, than an average civilian.

Tho, there might be exceptions for both groups.

Anyway, I can't see how a civilian can possibly have any moral autority to demand military action. Armchair generals, which are not serving/wern't serving their country are not going to die on the frontlines.


Hey, PrometheusBound, have you served in the military? Just curious.

 

Feel free to man-up about being wrong whenever you like because that's not what you said. You do know that intelligent people can just follow the conversation links back to this, don't you?:

As everyone will note, except perhaps you young sir,, it was the Communists who invaded South Korea. As an ally, once they asked for our help, we joined in. Why do you sympathize with the invading communists?

 

Sad, but I find so many who are brain dead and absolutely refuse to use any kind of cognitive reasoning. And I frequently ignore these types because all they can do is make inane statements, then attack when you dare to challenge them.

I also have absolutely no respect or use for somebody who tries to defend or support a racist and their racist and bigoted views. Maybe UDC and BP can get matching sheets and go marching hand in hand.

 

That's ridiculous. There's no difference between the two. The soldiers were civilians. Are civilians. They are civilians who serve in the military. There's no differences in courage.

On top of that, being a soldier does not make you a general. Maybe the generals maid in waiting...

I believe I already said the US leapt into the war because they were afraid N Korea wanted, or was going to turn Communist. What are you talking about? Show me where I said otherwise.

 

Agreed on all points.

Not everyone who joins the military does it for the same reason. Sure, some may just join it for a job, but all soon find out what it means. They find out the price of freedom is more than just a paycheck and marching in step. They also find out the value of freedom since, once one knows the price, they have a better idea of what something is worth. "Veterans voted more frequently than non-veterans."

Armchair generals and chicken hawks talk a good game, but most would never cut it in the military for several reasons. Either they'd fail training, incomplete for some other reason or "trip over a foot locker". Nobody want's a blithering idiot covering their back. It takes trustworthiness and heart to make it in the military.

- - - Updated - - -

That you not only don't know history but are so myopic you can even read my post linking the history. Will you admit that the North Korean communists invaded the South or not?

 

It is not. Downright serious.

WERE.

That is the biggest bull(*)(*)(*)(*) i heard for today.

You need a courage to have an occupation that might result into you getting killed. Or worse.



Being a dentist or a community manager...not so much.