The U.S. should destroy their nukes.

[hippie_hunter]

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME??????!!!!!

Asides from most of the pro-USA, freedom spout that celldog mentioned. He's right on that part. Fear of nuclear war with the United States prevented the Soviet Union from launching nuclear weapons at us or any nation attacking us for that matter. The same could be said for the Soviet Union however.

Mutually Assured Destruction basically saved the world and kept the peace between the two superpowers.

 

[Kyalesyin]

I'd love to see a nuke-free world, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. Everyone is locked in a state of 'you first', and even if everyone agrees to destroy them all at the same time, what if one country doesn't destroy all of them, or only claims to and doesn't let the inspectors in?

Thats the problem with these things- its very hard to go back.

 

[CyberFaust]

war *ha* yeah yeah
what is it good for?
absolutely nothing :P

 

[Memphis Slim]

None of you answered me except Hippie. You don't have a good answer. And hippie is absolutely correct.

 

[Darthphere]

Asides from most of the pro-USA, freedom spout that celldog mentioned. He's right on that part. Fear of nuclear war with the United States prevented the Soviet Union from launching nuclear weapons at us or any nation attacking us for that matter. The same could be said for the Soviet Union however.

Mutually Assured Destruction basically saved the world and kept the peace between the two superpowers.

But if you remove all the nuclear weapons, the threat is eliminated anyway. Of course, this will never happen.

 

[CyberFaust]

None of you answered me except Hippie. You don't have a good answer. And hippie is absolutely correct.

what was the question again?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Asides from most of the pro-USA, freedom spout that celldog mentioned. He's right on that part. Fear of nuclear war with the United States prevented the Soviet Union from launching nuclear weapons at us or any nation attacking us for that matter. The same could be said for the Soviet Union however.

Mutually Assured Destruction basically saved the world and kept the peace between the two superpowers.

actually, that peace was a very bloody peace with many small conflicts that cost thousands of lives and de-stabilized an already iffy region.
because open warfare was not an option, the whole sabotage of operations for the "enemy" and finance if freedom fighters as well as training ( and we all know how that one turned out) is hardly what i would call "keeping the peace"
I lived through the cold war years, it was NOT fun.

 

[hippie_hunter]

actually, that peace was a very bloody peace with many small conflicts that cost thousands of lives and de-stabilized an already iffy region.
because open warfare was not an option, the whole sabotage of operations for the "enemy" and finance if freedom fighters as well as training ( and we all know how that one turned out) is hardly what i would call "keeping the peace"
I lived through the cold war years, it was NOT fun.

Very true. But you have that or open nuclear warfare. Which would you prefer.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Very true. But you have that or open nuclear warfare. Which would you prefer.

uh, NONE.
I don't see exactly what it was that Nuclear weapons prevented then, or what peace they kept.
if conflict was still there, but one option wasn't taken because it was suicidal.

" hey, murder has kept our family together, because sometimes I want to ****ing kill you, but I know that you'd probably kill me in the process, so I don't kill you...Happy Anniversary honey!!!"

 

[CyberFaust]

well, with the nuclear bit you might get superpowers and stuff.......

 

[kingman]

It would be crazy for any country to get rid of them at the moment, it would leave the country open to attack which would be a mindless decision

 

[hippie_hunter]

uh, NONE.
I don't see exactly what it was that Nuclear weapons prevented then, or what peace they kept.
if conflict was still there, but one option wasn't taken because it was suicidal.

" hey, murder has kept our family together, because sometimes I want to ****ing kill you, but I know that you'd probably kill me in the process, so I don't kill you...Happy Anniversary honey!!!"

Nuclear weapons and MAD basicallly prevented open war between the United States and the Soviet Union. That's the fragile peace it kept. Open war between the two superpowers would have destroyed the world.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Nuclear weapons and MAD basicallly prevented open war between the United States and the Soviet Union. That's the fragile peace it kept. Open war between the two superpowers would have destroyed the world.

I think you and I hold different Ideas of what peace is.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think you and I hold different Ideas of what peace is.

I don't beleive that the Cold War was peace. I consider it to be a very fragile peace between to giants that could have destroyed the world.

 

[CyberFaust]

it wasn't peace
it was a war
cold war means a war without open confruntation, but it was a war

 

[Memphis Slim]

Nuclear weapons and MAD basicallly prevented open war between the United States and the Soviet Union. That's the fragile peace it kept. Open war between the two superpowers would have destroyed the world.

...and none of these nay sayers would been enjoying the privilege this here message board.....

 

[OverMyHead]

actually, that peace was a very bloody peace with many small conflicts that cost thousands of lives and de-stabilized an already iffy region.
because open warfare was not an option, the whole sabotage of operations for the "enemy" and finance if freedom fighters as well as training ( and we all know how that one turned out) is hardly what i would call "keeping the peace"
I lived through the cold war years, it was NOT fun.

Wait, how can you live through the cold war if you're only eighteen?

 

[Memphis Slim]

it wasn't peace
it was a war
cold war means a war without open confruntation, but it was a war

"sigh"

 

[cryptic name]

I think it's better for the whole world to be a third world country.

1. No more global warming
2. No more internet, computer games
3. Healthy lifestyle diet
4. Less obesity, cancer, and heart attacks
5. No more diabetes
6. Increase in exercise and well-being
7. No more pollutants in the air & sea
8. A more humane treatment of others
9. More Education. More reading.
10. Less illterate f**ks.

yeah, because everyone would have time to read and study when every hour of every day needs to be spent ensuring you don't starve to death.

 

[hippie_hunter]

...and none of these nay sayers would been enjoying the privilege this here message board.....

Sure

 

[Memphis Slim]

uh, NONE.
I don't see exactly what it was that Nuclear weapons prevented then, or what peace they kept.
if conflict was still there, but one option wasn't taken because it was suicidal.

" hey, murder has kept our family together, because sometimes I want to ****ing kill you, but I know that you'd probably kill me in the process, so I don't kill you...Happy Anniversary honey!!!"

Another brilliant dodge. That was not one of the choices he presented to you.

And since the "subject" is NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT OF THE U.S.", it should be pretty obvious what "peace" Hippie is talking about. The lack of a nuclear conflict is what we are discussing in the context of "should the Americans disarm". And the mere fact that we are still here today is a testament to what superior strength and "restraint" can do. The Cuban missle crisis would have gone a lot differently if the U.S. was not a threat to Russia. Stalin would have continued into Europe if not for the fear of nuclear destruction on both sides.

We've had other wars. but none of the nuclear kind.....which is what we are talking about.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Another brilliant dodge. That was not one of the choices he presented to you.

And since the "subject" is NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT OF THE U.S.", it should be pretty obvious what "peace" Hippie is talking about. The lack of a nuclear conflict is what we are discussing in the context of "should the Americans disarm". And the mere fact that we are still here today is a testament to what superior strength and "restraint" can do. The Cuban missle crisis would have gone a lot differently if the U.S. was not a threat to Russia. Stalin would have continued into Europe if not for the fear of nuclear destruction on both sides.

We've had other wars. but none of the nuclear kind.....which is what we are talking about.

LOL, no dood, you FAIL at reading yet again.
Peace is PEACE.
you have very poor complrehension for someone who claims to be so old.
seriously man, keep quiet, it keeps you from looking like an idiot.

well, mostly.

 

[Cаrter]

Somebody watched that stupid history channel show last night

 

[CyberFaust]

Stalin would have continued into Europe if not for the fear of nuclear destruction on both sides.

i might be mistaken but only one side had a nuclear wapon in ww2

 

[Memphis Slim]

i might be mistaken but only one side had a nuclear wapon in ww2

That's right.....but not for very long. And the fact that we were the only one at that time and "still" didn't go after the Russians with them is proof that we were not after "world domination". That could have saved us a lot of trouble later if we had.