Maybe we should nuke them again unless they change their textbooks. And they probably have yet to recieve sufficient payback for the Nanjing atrocities. maybe drop a couple on them for that too, since you seem to imply nuking them served both military AND revenge purposes.
I see a 2016 version of the 1964 Daisy ad right here. DNC are you listening?
3 Likes
And on the flip side, letâs say Donnie becomes president, and uses the threat of nuclear attack on a weekly basis against people (nations) for whatever reasonâŚ
There will come a time when he will be the boy who cried wolf. And when he REALLY needs to play that card, in the direst of circumstances, he will find he wonât be taken seriously.
Then, he (and we) are fucked.
1 Like
There is a reason that preempts yours given.
It is that it would be immoral and unethical to use a first strike of nuclear weapons.
Iâll let the Tao te Ching speak for me:
31
Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.
Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesnât wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?
He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.
4 Likes
The theory of strategic bombing was well hashed out in the 1920âs. Ironically, it was put forth by an Italian (Douhet), a country that did not really participate in the practice in WWIIâŚ
As an aside, Total War means just that, and you can be damn glad it has not been more than local phenomenon in the past 70 yearsâŚ
Note to Donnie. That movie is NOT an instruction manual.
2 Likes
Every war in history has meant terrible things for non-combatants. At the very least, the loss of foods, animals, and vehicles. Rape, murder, and the like are common. Iâm just reading a new âFall of Romeâ book, which is very interesting. Attila the Hun was a total war guy. Anyone in his path, regardless of status, would be killed. 30 years war, hundred year war, war of roses, WWI, WWII, etc - civilians were killed in huge numbers. That is how war is. And that is good. If it was just fun stuff, we would engage in it more than we do.
So youâre not saying we wonât get our hair mussed?
1 Like
Izzat a double or triple negative?
Itâs nice to see a conservative whoâs eyes are at least open enough to see this, but this is still a conservative who tweets that Hillaryâs âuntrustworthinessâ is so strong that almost any true conservative could run against her and win. Thatâs at much a fantasy as the fantasy that Trump can be trusted to act with reason and restraint as POTUS. In other words, heâs still got some blinders on.
1 Like
Thatâs a double with an additional Turgidsonian reference, a low degree of difficulty.
2 Likes
KIlgore I have been thinking about that scene for awhile. An issue with this film is the idea it could plant into concerned citizens. Actually I like this film alot. But I thought it was irresponsible of King and the filmmakerâs to suggest the only recourse was an assassination attempt to solve the problem.
1 Like
I have thought the same thing.
There had to be another better way.
1 Like
The decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made by people who had no real, visceral understanding of the fact that nuclear weapons are not just âeven bigger bombs.â The horror of using them again, ever, comes directly from seeing what two little ones, just one each, did to two cities.
2 Likes
Very accurate â I am old enough that we did duck-and-cover drills and wore dogtags (âso it will be easy to reunite you with your parents after the bombs fallâ â which was a lie because the dog tags were to make identifying bodies easier, but I digress). Trump is older than I am, so I would have thought he had those kinds of memories, too, that he understood the whole idea of Mutually Assured Distruction, because he lived through that era.
That he missed such a major theme that lasted for most of his life is all I need to know about his capabilities.
1 Like
Our resident (censored) earned himself a short time out in the corner yesterday because he is unwilling to stop exhorting Hive members to watch Clinton Cash and at least find something, ANYthing, wrong with Hillary.
The fool had created at least three topics on the subject and had posted the trailer for the movie on several other topics in the Hive.
@1988ranger was finally was sent to the corner for repeatedly posting refuted subject matter and just plain trolling.
2 Likes
Oh, I think some critical decision makers had at least an inkling these weapons differed a bit from those that came before them;
It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhowerâs assessment was âIt wasnât necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.â
What part of the word âdeliberatelyâ did you not understand?
2 Likes
Yep, I used it as the intro to my repost on FB. If that doesnât peak your interest, nothing will.
Yet by the time he took office in 1953, Eisenhowerâs views on nuclear weapons had changed. Not wanting to see the United States âchoke itself to death piling up military expendituresâ and assuming that any war with the Soviet Union would quickly turn nuclear, he shifted emphasis from costly conventional military capabilities to massive nuclear retaliation by a fortified Strategic Air Command. Whereas President Harry Truman had considered nuclear arms to be weapons of last resort, Eisenhowerâs âNew Lookâ made them the foundation of US defense strategy.
Thatâs wrong.
âŚEisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: â. . . it wasnât necessary to hit them with that awful thing.â (See pp. 352-358, Chapter 28)
at the bottom of the page hereâŚ