Intersting addition to the scheme of things

Actually, if the it was logical to assume that leaders would choose not to use such weapons, then a good portion of the justification for going after Saddam and the rest of the 'axis of evil' is kind of a moot point. Maybe it was the oil then :D

Ards, I wish I could reach the same conclusion as you. I would be more confortable with it, but I don't think a nation would choose to be defeated. Its rare that a nation chooses to loose a war. In fact, i don't think its ever happened. We used them on Japan just to end the war faster. I'm quite sure facing the prospect of benig attacked, defeated, and removed from power, the leaders would choose to use them. I'm not so sure we wouldn't use them if Iraq used some 'wmd' on our troops. God I hate that phrase. It kind of makes me sick hearing it constantly. What precisely is a 'weapon of mass destruction.' Whatever it has to be to justify our actions I guess :D Sorry, I just really hate that phrase now. I need to find ways to avoid using it.
 
RD_151 said:
Do you think Saddam would sit on a nuclear stockpile if he knew he was gonna die anyway?
Click to expand...

Ah, but we were talking about the Russians. I don't think Putin is any sort of madman. Even going back to the latter part of the Soviet era, I don't think you can point to too many of their leaders who were mad enough to want total annihilation.
 
Well, the point is, any war conventional or other will always be prevented by 'sane' world powers, because they would inevitably lead to a nuclear exchange. I just can't see how there could be any sort of limited convential war followed by a cease fire or a treaty. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see it. I think the approach has simply been to avoid ANY war with major powers because the thought of what might happen in the event of such a war is just so unthinkable that it MUST be avoided, all conflict must be avoided. Now, there was some indirect fighting between the US an the USSR via Korea, and Vietnam, etc etc but not real direct conflict. That was more a conflict of ideologies though, not armies (at least between the two superpowers).
 
RD_151 said:
Well, the point is, any war conventional or other will always be prevented by 'sane' world powers, because they would inevitably lead to a nuclear exchange.
Click to expand...

If you change 'would inevitably' to 'could possibly', I think I can agree with that. I don't think people would really want to take the chance that it could go nuclear.
 
Hey, you might be on to something. We've solved our long-run funding problems with social security :D Leave it to Bush to find a truly creative solution.
 
No... a truly creative solution would be suicide centres, where you get 5 star luxury treatment beforehand and the most inventive suicide gets a deluxe fully paid for funeral... always assuming that the dirty old men don't die from heart attacks first...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top