You're really good at proving your point. Consider my will bent under the overwhelming weight of your arguments.ghettoperson wrote:
Then I'm afraid to tell you you're entirely wrong.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Very much so in the nuclear sense...would be stupid to think of it like that considering they didn't exist until recently.ghettoperson wrote:
Take it up with my university professors if you don't believe me. Are you trying to claim that every war since that hasn't come to nuclear war is a Cold War?
I don't have to prove my point. I'm telling you that is how it is taught at university level Internation Relations/Politics/History. If you happen to have a Masters in any of these subjects and know otherwise I'm all ears.
Yep, he's wrong - he's referring to his own definition of a "Cold War" and not the commonly accepted term.ghettoperson wrote:
Then I'm afraid to tell you you're entirely wrong.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Very much so in the nuclear sense...would be stupid to think of it like that considering they didn't exist until recently.ghettoperson wrote:
Take it up with my university professors if you don't believe me. Are you trying to claim that every war since that hasn't come to nuclear war is a Cold War?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-11-13 15:39:21)
Professors aren't wrong. I never misunderstand my professors. When my professors use a term in a certain context, that is the only context to which the term pertains. Terms never have more than one meaning.
Okay commonly accepted my ass. The term "cold war" is used because the conflict never escalated to any appreciable loss of life on either side, which was particularly important because the feared loss of life was massive with both country's hands wavering over the big red button. The threat of a conventional invasion (and your "direct conflict") was minimal compared to the exchange of nuclear weapons that could have resulted from a number of situations, most of which had nothing to do with the military.
Okay commonly accepted my ass. The term "cold war" is used because the conflict never escalated to any appreciable loss of life on either side, which was particularly important because the feared loss of life was massive with both country's hands wavering over the big red button. The threat of a conventional invasion (and your "direct conflict") was minimal compared to the exchange of nuclear weapons that could have resulted from a number of situations, most of which had nothing to do with the military.
But your saying the Cold War meant that Nukes weren't used. If that's the case then all wars apart from WWII in the Pacific have been cold. In which case the term Cold War would have more than one meaning.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Terms never have more than one meaning.
Your just contradicting yourself.
Where have you heard the term "Cold War" mean what you are describing? You choose to define it the way you want, but in regards to the "Cold War" that we are discussing here, there is a commonly accepted definition. So let's use that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Professors aren't wrong. I never misunderstand my professors. When my professors use a term in a certain context, that is the only context to which the term pertains. Terms never have more than one meaning.
jesus christ wtf are you guys arguing about? a fucking term? well get over it. its done. aint going away. it will stay there. have a nice day.
So what are you saying in relation to your argument about the definition?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Professors aren't wrong. I never misunderstand my professors. When my professors use a term in a certain context, that is the only context to which the term pertains. Terms never have more than one meaning.
A "cold war" applies to any wars fought in proxy or by means other than militarily. The Cold War was cold because no nukes were exchanged. The specifics are important in context.TheAussieReaper wrote:
But your saying the Cold War meant that Nukes weren't used. If that's the case then all wars apart from WWII in the Pacific have been cold. In which case the term Cold War would have more than one meaning.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Terms never have more than one meaning.
Your just contradicting yourself.
Yes you can think about it as every other war being like a "Cold War" because no nukes were fired. It's incredibly stupid to try to extend that logic to other technologically inferior wars, but apparently since everyone is trying to play gotcha here you all go right ahead and have fun.
post #29 edited ken
No. FM you are wrong. We're all telling you this. lolFlaming_Maniac wrote:
A "cold war" applies to any wars fought in proxy or by means other than militarily. The Cold War was cold because no nukes were exchanged. The specifics are important in context.TheAussieReaper wrote:
But your saying the Cold War meant that Nukes weren't used. If that's the case then all wars apart from WWII in the Pacific have been cold. In which case the term Cold War would have more than one meaning.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Terms never have more than one meaning.
Your just contradicting yourself.
Yes you can think about it as every other war being like a "Cold War" because no nukes were fired. It's incredibly stupid to try to extend that logic to other technologically inferior wars, but apparently since everyone is trying to play gotcha here you all go right ahead and have fun.
post #29 edited ken
We're not talking about a cold war, we're talking about The Cold War.
Secondly, the term Cold War is not entirely based on the fact that nukes were not used. We're still trying to explain that concept to you.
It was a Cold War because it was fought with Proxy Wars, no escalation in conflict lead to direct US vs Russian military operations, which would have meant a War that wasn't cold.
It and other wars are never referred to as Cold Wars. There is no term for "cold wars" because that war didn't use nukes, because as you said that would be silly. "All wars bar one have been Cold so call all wars specifically Cold" ? It doesn't make sense.
There has only been one Cold War. That's how we all refer to it. That's how we'll always refer to it. It's an Umbrella term. Not simply a Nuclear weapons use indication.
No, the definition of the Cold War is that there was no direct conflict between the two powers involved. As you said, the term cold war can be applied to any war fought in proxy or by means other than militarily.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
A "cold war" applies to any wars fought in proxy or by means other than militarily. The Cold War was cold because no nukes were exchanged. The specifics are important in context.TheAussieReaper wrote:
But your saying the Cold War meant that Nukes weren't used. If that's the case then all wars apart from WWII in the Pacific have been cold. In which case the term Cold War would have more than one meaning.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Terms never have more than one meaning.
Your just contradicting yourself.
Yes you can think about it as every other war being like a "Cold War" because no nukes were fired. It's incredibly stupid to try to extend that logic to other technologically inferior wars, but apparently since everyone is trying to play gotcha here you all go right ahead and have fun.
So sorry marine, not all of us start and end arguments with one line. Please accept this apologyusmarine wrote:
jesus christ wtf are you guys arguing about? a fucking term? well get over it. its done. aint going away. it will stay there. have a nice day.
Aussie there have been other "cold wars", so named because of their lack of direct conflict, you can look them up.
You guys have completely missed the boat when it comes to the Cold War. It was cold because of a lack of direct military involvement as a technicality at best - the important aspect to understand about the military and political policies of the period is that they kept it from going "hot" and becoming a nuclear war.
You guys have completely missed the boat when it comes to the Cold War. It was cold because of a lack of direct military involvement as a technicality at best - the important aspect to understand about the military and political policies of the period is that they kept it from going "hot" and becoming a nuclear war.
you are arguing over somehting that is over? and calling people wrong over it. lol w/e. such a tosser.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
So sorry marine, not all of us start and end arguments with one line. Please accept this apologyusmarine wrote:
jesus christ wtf are you guys arguing about? a fucking term? well get over it. its done. aint going away. it will stay there. have a nice day.
I remember recently reading something to the effect that the only reason a nuclear warhead was not launched by Russia was because of a Soviet Sub commander who directly disobeyed a superior's command. I can't for the life of me remember where I read it, but I'll see if I can find it when I get home from work.
I don't understand how you can qualify that statement, defining the term cold war as meaning "lack of direct conflict" and then go on to say the Cold War was cold due to a technicality? "It was really called the Cold War because of no Nuclear combat"Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Aussie there have been other "cold wars", so named because of their lack of direct conflict, you can look them up.
You have completely missed the boat when it comes to the Cold War. It was Cold because escalations in tensions didn't lead to a War.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It was cold because of a lack of direct military involvement as a technicality at best - the important aspect to understand about the military and political policies of the period is that they kept it from going "hot" and becoming a nuclear war.
It comes down to the fact that the cold war wasn't fought between the US and Russia. Not that they didn't use Nuclear weaponry.
You appear to have completely missed the boat in the way that you're just coming up with your own definition of it. We've told you the historically accepted definition of the Cold War. In any case, clearly trying to get this across to you is a lost cause, since you're just going on like a broken record.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Aussie there have been other "cold wars", so named because of their lack of direct conflict, you can look them up.
You guys have completely missed the boat when it comes to the Cold War. It was cold because of a lack of direct military involvement as a technicality at best - the important aspect to understand about the military and political policies of the period is that they kept it from going "hot" and becoming a nuclear war.
It's practically irrelevant that the neither sides were in direct conflict. What made the war what it was was the nuclear weapon and the development of ICBMs.TheAussieReaper wrote:
I don't understand how you can qualify that statement, defining the term cold war as meaning "lack of direct conflict" and then go on to say the Cold War was cold due to a technicality? "It was really called the Cold War because of no Nuclear combat"Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Aussie there have been other "cold wars", so named because of their lack of direct conflict, you can look them up.
You need to understand the political, social, and psychological effects of the nuclear weapon to understand the Cold War. To attempt to look at the Cold War without that...you're missing the big picture.
lol I don't understand the Cold War?
Have you read any of the posts in this topic by me at all?
Your contradicting yourself again.
That's what lead to war. Not the Nuclear Weapons. Do I really have to explain McCarthyism and Domino Theory again? Go read through this topic from the beginning, for your own sake.
Have you read any of the posts in this topic by me at all?
Your contradicting yourself again.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's practically irrelevant that the neither sides were in direct conflict. What made the war what it was was the nuclear weapon and the development of ICBMs.
Your completely missing the policital, social and pshchological effects of Communism and Capitalism on the two super powers.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You need to understand the political, social, and psychological effects of the nuclear weapon to understand the Cold War.
That's what lead to war. Not the Nuclear Weapons. Do I really have to explain McCarthyism and Domino Theory again? Go read through this topic from the beginning, for your own sake.
Here's you * And here's everyone else catching the Boat ***
Still don't see how I'm contradicting myself. In fact those statements very much back each other up if you read the entire sentences.
The atomic bomb made the war what it was. There would have been conflict in the clash of ideologies sure, but the great distance separating the countries that could only have been effectively closed by the power to destroy an entire city thousands of miles away at the push of a button is central to how the war played out. Sheesh, have you never seen Dr. Strangelove?
As a side note, it's just getting annoying when you keep paralleling my structure over and over again. Want to use rhetoric, fine, but it's getting old. New words ftw.
The atomic bomb made the war what it was. There would have been conflict in the clash of ideologies sure, but the great distance separating the countries that could only have been effectively closed by the power to destroy an entire city thousands of miles away at the push of a button is central to how the war played out. Sheesh, have you never seen Dr. Strangelove?
As a side note, it's just getting annoying when you keep paralleling my structure over and over again. Want to use rhetoric, fine, but it's getting old. New words ftw.
It wasn't a war in the literal sense. It was fought as I have said a few times now, through proxy wars.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The atomic bomb made the war what it was. There would have been conflict in the clash of ideologies sure, but the great distance separating the countries that could only have been effectively closed by the power to destroy an entire city thousands of miles away at the push of a button is central to how the war played out. Sheesh, have you never seen Dr. Strangelove?
The Cold war is not unique that Nuclear weapons were not used.
The Cold war is unique in that the USSR and the US were engaged in covert practices as well as proxy Wars to either spread or halt Communism\Capitalism and force regime changes, invade countries in South East Asia and dominate the worlds focus on South East Asia.
If it was called the Cold war because Nuclear weapons were not used, that term could be said of the War on Terror ffs.
I'm done arguing with you, everyone else has agreed with me and I with them. You seem to be the one left without a ship to stand on.
Now you're just being ridiculous.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
if you read the entire sentences.
As a side note, the last time the United States officially declared war was WWII. And that was only after the axis powers declared war on us .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
i agree with FM tbh.
The Cold War is unique because the human race said shit, we can blow each other up reeeeeel good now. What do we do?
There were no rules for all intents and purposes about nuclear weapons, the rulebook was being written by the pioneering countries in times of a very real possibility of nuclear conflict. That's what makes that war so much interesting than so many other wars, the fact that the two pinnacles of human society were literally pushed to the brink of annihilation. There have been other tiffs with cultural drama, proxy wars and whatnot throughout history.
Disagree with me, fine. I certainly don't mind. I beg of you not to go about life thinking you must be right because you are in the majority however. Question your ideas on their own merit, not by their coinciding with general consensus.
There were no rules for all intents and purposes about nuclear weapons, the rulebook was being written by the pioneering countries in times of a very real possibility of nuclear conflict. That's what makes that war so much interesting than so many other wars, the fact that the two pinnacles of human society were literally pushed to the brink of annihilation. There have been other tiffs with cultural drama, proxy wars and whatnot throughout history.
Disagree with me, fine. I certainly don't mind. I beg of you not to go about life thinking you must be right because you are in the majority however. Question your ideas on their own merit, not by their coinciding with general consensus.