Wow, that is such a long time. It is clearly an infallible method.ATG wrote:
Nuclear weapons have kept a relative peace for over half a century
More than twice as long as you have been alive.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Wow, that is such a long time. It is clearly an infallible method.ATG wrote:
Nuclear weapons have kept a relative peace for over half a century
Only in past centuries.FatherTed wrote:
45 years is a heartbeat in warfare, no?
Yes that makes sense, how long I have been alive is vitally important when comparing the peace correlated with (but not necessarily caused by) the threat of MAD, not something ridiculous like the thousands of years man has been trying to rip is fellow man a new hole.ATG wrote:
More than twice as long as you have been alive.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Wow, that is such a long time. It is clearly an infallible method.ATG wrote:
Nuclear weapons have kept a relative peace for over half a century
Nuclear weapons keep the peace.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes that makes sense, how long I have been alive is vitally important when comparing the peace correlated with (but not necessarily caused by) the threat of MAD, not something ridiculous like the thousands of years man has been trying to rip is fellow man a new hole.ATG wrote:
More than twice as long as you have been alive.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Wow, that is such a long time. It is clearly an infallible method.
k, let's just pretend I'm not the kinda guy to take statements on blind faith, how would you back that up? With the said half century?ATG wrote:
Nuclear weapons keep the peace.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes that makes sense, how long I have been alive is vitally important when comparing the peace correlated with (but not necessarily caused by) the threat of MAD, not something ridiculous like the thousands of years man has been trying to rip is fellow man a new hole.ATG wrote:
More than twice as long as you have been alive.
Spears and slings equal perpetual warfare.
QFTFEOS wrote:
I'd say the only thing nukes have prevented is major force-on-force engagements between nuclear powers.
They haven't done anything to stop lower-level conflicts...often proxy wars between said nuclear powers.
Look at the numbers of peoples and soldiers killed prior to 1945 in war.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
k, let's just pretend I'm not the kinda guy to take statements on blind faith, how would you back that up? With the said half century?ATG wrote:
Nuclear weapons keep the peace.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes that makes sense, how long I have been alive is vitally important when comparing the peace correlated with (but not necessarily caused by) the threat of MAD, not something ridiculous like the thousands of years man has been trying to rip is fellow man a new hole.
Spears and slings equal perpetual warfare.
That still doesn't mean anything. You can't take the tiny amount of time between two massive wars and say "look at everything we were doing right".ATG wrote:
Look at the numbers of peoples and soldiers killed prior to 1945 in war.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
k, let's just pretend I'm not the kinda guy to take statements on blind faith, how would you back that up? With the said half century?ATG wrote:
Nuclear weapons keep the peace.
Spears and slings equal perpetual warfare.
Compare that to the numbers killed since in war.
Never say never. Depends on whichever fanatic decides to use it.ATG wrote:
Nobody can survive and absorb a barrage, and so there will be no barrage coming.
Last edited by LiamPK (2009-04-05 15:13:07)
That is certainly not why you said so before.ATG wrote:
Which is why if we say we are disarming it should be a lie.
To keep the peace?ATG wrote:
I am saying no to disarmament.