[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:
Russia had their decades-long dick-measuring contest with America and they still haven’t bombed us YET. Are you still waiting for them to? [/quote]
Because they were directly and indirectly confronted over and over and over again in a vast myriad of ways and not because we hunkered down within our 12 mile limit on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and crossed our fingers within reach of “the football.”
Let me tell you something, FNG, don’t waltz into PWI with a piss poor grasp of history and expect to go unchallenged. It aint a-happenin’.[quote]
Just because a country has nuclear power does NOT mean they are going to use it on the United States or anywhere else. [/quote]
And the inverse is true as well. Just because a country has nuclear power does NOT mean they won’t use it on the United States or anywhere else. In fact, a prudent man would have to go with the prize behind Door #2. A country with them is more likely to use them than a country without them. That’s what a lot of folks call ol’ fashioned common sense.
I think it is a very foolish, very naive notion to attempt to implement detente and/or MAD on a vast global scale with a relatively diverse, large number of enemies. It becomes too complex. Too risky. Too many variables.
It was difficult enough with just the Soviet Union whose global ambitions did not include a basic suicidal mindset right from the get-go. In fact, it’s for that very reason that MAD worked; because the Ruskies were still basically rational. The same cannot be said for the insane whackos from the desert nations.[quote]
And if the country that has traditionally (post WW2) been our most threatening adversary hasn’t done it, why are we so concerned with these piss ants?[/quote]
See above.[quote]
As I said before, they know, just like Kim Jong Il, that if they were to do something, it’d all be over for them. They like their power. They’re not going to give it up.[/quote]
You can’t keep runnin’ 'round assigning Russian-like sensibility to Omar the Virgin Hunting Scimitar Wielder.[quote]
Yes, that disorganized country that harbored the same terrorist faction… Why are you throwing 9/11 into this? A one-off attack, the likes of which will not be pulled off again for obvious reasons,[/quote]
You’re quite the prognosticator. Tell us how you know this ^.[quote]
that some officials claimed our government was aware of. [/quote]
Uh oh. I think you showed us your hand. Speaking of rationality…[quote]
We can have an argument about how organized Iran is, but the real point is that they’re not powerful enough to be a threat, country to country, to the United States. To Israel, sure.[/quote]
A threat to Israel is a threat to the U.S. You may not like that but it stands there unassailable nonetheless.[quote]
And I’m betting, right now, that that is as far as it’s going to go. If Israel is bombed with nuclear weapons by Iran, I will print out these words and film myself eating them.[/quote]
The problem with that is if you’re wrong you just have a simple short bout with some distasteful paper. The rest of much of the world will have problems of a vastly different sort.[quote]
We are more of a threat to ourselves than such terrorist activity is. More Americans are killed by other Americans yearly than by terrorists. No contest. Let’s all be afraid of each other. Oh wait…[/quote]
Weak. Lame. Irrelevant.
[/quote]
Right. So a country that was THE legitimate threat to America STILL did NOT use the bomb. Hm. So why would these people? Why are we worried about them when a country we had to stand up to still didn’t attack us?
WE have used nuclear weapons on another country. That’s it. And we were in a position then to fear no repercussions. 7 other countries have them definitely, and they have not used them against another country. We are the only one.
And unless Bam here gets into third stage syphilis, we’re not going to bomb our own country, that literally leaves no countries who have bombed another. I dunno, that doesn’t make the world too scary to ME…
Since it seems impossible that a country without nuclear weapons would be able to use them, your “common sense” is valid. But again, the preceding paragraph roughly explains why I still believe it’s not enough to assume that if a country gets nuclear weapons, we’re going to be bombed.
An attack on Israel IS an attack on us, but very metaphorically. We would certainly get involved at that point (like you said, whether one agrees with it or not). But you’re aware that Israel is largely suspected to have nuclear technology, right?
Do you care if they arm? Would you have the same concerns for other countries in their region or is it just a US interest deal? If they do have the technology, do we have to worry for them? Another standoff situation would, in all likelihood, be born.
The 9/11 not happening again thing was in reference to the ridiculous airport security measures, the paranoia of that method of travel, and passengers’ quick reactions to incidents like the shoe bomber. I don’t see it happening and I don’t think the terrorists do, either. The heat is up and what we’ve had are more small-scale (not less tragic) incidents like Ft. Hood.
Obviously, if Israel were bombed it would be a tragedy. I meant to express that if it did happen, I would of course own up to eating my words under unfortunate circumstances. I’m just confident it won’t happen.
The suicidal nature of the terrorists is indeed something to think about. And if I didn’t think their main objective is to preserve their land the way they want it, under their religion, etc. then I would definitely agree.
As it is, it would not make sense for them to want that but then sacrifice all of their lives to our retaliation. I’m not sure even their interpretation of the religion they bastardize would allow them to do that.