Will There Ever be A Nuclear War?

Actually I was just responding to your accusations, like when you said I said South Korea wanted to be Communist. I suppose we can start from there. When did I say that?

 

I find it interesting that 9/11 seems to be such a non event for you. For me, it radically changed my life. I was mobilized for 22 months away from my home, my wife, and my children. Of course, that was just a direct effect on me as an individual. As an American, I found it a traumatic event in which I felt our entire country took a gut punch and a national response was required. I find myself deeply effected on each anniversary from that day.

 

Well that's just my feelings. It was a shock then, but now I don't dwell on it, and I was born in New York City. I was in the military also, then, and was deployed seven months. But, like a death in the family, you move on.

Still, 22 months is heavy. Especially in a warzone. I don't really agree with the response, but I empathize with the people who had to go and stay. Soldiers...whether right or wrong, they go anyway because those are the orders. My sister was also in the military, and she had to go there for two years also. That struck me more than WTC did.

 

No need to become upset, UDC. You never answered the question about it despite my repeated comments. It appeared to me you were dodging the question. Did you or was it just oversight?

 

No, because by a war one side wins, by using nukes there are no winners. Nukes are a tool of fear, used to intimidate the other side, psychological warfare. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was maximum fear (and destruction of two cities) to end a world war, they could do that because the other side had no nukes, in this time this is different. In this time words are more powerful than the most powerful 'weapon' (a nuke is no weapon, it's a device of mass destruction, or tool of fear if not used)

 

Agreed, but that doesn't mean some terrorist group won't set one off somewhere.

 

Lower yield tactical nuclear weapons might be feasible, but again the radioactive fallout is what kills so indiscriminately. Long after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people were still dying of radiation sickness or years later of cancers related to the initial exposure to high levels of radiation. If the boom doesn't get you, the radiation will..and radiation does not separate the good guys from the bad guys. Imagine you've defeated the enemy, they have surrendered unconditionally, yet because of an exchange of nuclear weapons, casualties are still being inflicted. People are still dying of radiation related cancers and suffering needlessly. It's a weapon that should only be utilized in an end game scenario..never in a limited war conflict.

Before the two A-bombs were dropped on Japan, science did not have a complete understanding of the consequences. Now we know...the consequences go beyond their intention.

 

Wut? U mad, bro? I've never said anything like that. That will be added to the report for your ambulance.

 

Pretty pathetic. You might as well say that Churchill and FDR were just like Hitler. Besides, Hitler said that he wished Germany had become Muslim because they were a bloodthirsty race of "warriors."

 

Why would I? Can't remember FDR advocating a genocide.
Churchill is another case.

Your dear leader was a real freak, so I wouldn't be surprised if he actually said something like it. But i would like to see a link, just for education purposes.

 

I can't compete with the jihadist oil money that finances the gurus you dhimmis worship.

 

I was in the Marine Corps infantry (mornaya pekhota) in Vietnam from Sep66 to Mar67. While I was out there, 38 out of 150 Marines got killed.

 

It's not about words, it's about swords. Despite what your intellectual pedophiles preach to you, the pen is mightier than the sword only when it is signing an order to buy swords.

 

Right, send Marines in there to get slaughtered because you're too touchy-feely and gushy-girly about nukes. Well, we're used to that.

 

Shouldn't you be hunting down some bad guys instead of wasting your time with us?

I do thank you for whatever service you have performed in your life and I will be the first help you if I ever get the chance.

I'm sure that we share a common perspective, though I can't abide your means. I will be doing my part to save this country (America) with whomever I meet and wherever I meet them.

 

Hyperbole aside...here's a quote for you sir.

There are rules to warfare...Jus Ad Bello...Latin for the law in waging war.
This includes the concept that the force used should be commensurate with the situation ; and yes if having concern for the collateral damage aspects of prosecuting an enemy with nuclear weapons makes me "touchy-feely," so be it. Nuclear weapons should be used only in an end game scenario...not in a limited conflict.

Weapon of last resort.

 

Thanks for the response without calling me a "muzzie lower".

Well, glad that you've actually served.
So, explain me, why do you want innocent people to get killed? You like it or what? What, say, a random Turk have done to you, that you'd like him to get killed? Targeting entire nation/religion must have some serious background. Waiting for an explanation.

Edit:
It sounds like morskaya pehota.

 

I think I may have given you an incorrect impression, but I was a reservist activated for 22 months. I was only downrange a couple of months. The unit I was attached to rotated people in and out fairly regularly. 22 months in a war zone would have sucked though. But for me, it was 22 months away from my family.

 

While I believe you won't understand this, but it's for one of the same reason we didn't and shouldn't condone the torture of prisoners. If we just nuked whomever we had a disagreement with, taking out thousands of innocents in collateral damage, that just hands our enemies the justification to do the same to us.

 

I had no idea the Soviets had Marines in Vietnam. Only seven months too. Good deall! U. S. Marines had to serve six month tours but were given incentives to serve a full year. Being good patriots and hard chargers, most did.

As we say in the United States Marine Corps, Semper Fidelis! Semper Fi for short. It means "Always Faithful". What was the motto of the Soviet Marines?

 

Actually, the Soviets (and now Russians) have never had a Marine Corps.

What they had/have is "Naval Infantry" (Морская пехот&#1072.





Not quite up to the standards of the US Marines, mostly because they have a much smaller in size and scope (not because of quality). All told they made up about a Division worth of fighters, scattered among several brigades. Their role was to prepare and spearhead in the event of an amphibious assault, and to seize/secure naval bases.

 

Agreed about the lower standards. I can understand how language and cultural differences would limit PB's understanding of the difference between the Soviet Naval Infantry, mornaya pekhota he said, and the United States Marine Corps.

 

Not only that, he used the wrong word(s).

The word(s) in Russian is (are) "морская пехота".

The standards though for Soviet/Russian Naval Infantry is about equal to that of the US Marines. However, because it was a much smaller organization, still an integrated part of their Navy and with a much different role, it is not really an equal comparison.

Much like trying to compare a US Marine circa 1900 (where their role was in defending ships, ports and embassies), and comparing them to those of WWII after 4 years of fighting Amphibious warfare with the Japanese. The US Marines during that time evolved into a much different organization, while the Soviets/Russians stayed mostly with their traditional role.

 

No, if I never answered your constantly annoying demand that I admit to something I never said anything about, there is no win for you.

However, if you are going to tell me when I said South Korea wanted to be Communist, I'lll wait for that.