BF2S Forums Pakistan is the biggest threat to the World

Kmar wrote:

.. and would undoubtedly generate blowback on a global scale.

A blowback on China, if they were the ones that actually did it.

Besides, most of the world wouldn't miss North Korea.  They aren't essential to any trading arrangements, nor do they serve any vital purpose to the world.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

How many wars do you think the US can juggle at once?

With the current bullshit ROE and unclear goals?

Only one country...

Yep, the whole "only fire when fired upon" bullshit doesn't work.  I prefer the "if you have anything more deadly than a handgun on you, hand it over or be fired upon."

Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-08 11:43:58)

Turquoise wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good point, but this is part of why we need to eventually eliminate North Korea.

I'm sure we could strike up some deal with China to take care of it.

When you say eliminate, do you mean convert to radioactive glass? That would strike an ugly precedent.

Nuking Japan to end WW2 was an ugly precedent too, but it worked.

Ugly? How was it ugly?

100,000 lives vs. an invasion force where millions would have died. The numbers speak for themselves, those nukes were lifesavers.

I know what you mean, but look at how many lives it saved.

Anybody know how many died because of radiation though?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

When you say eliminate, do you mean convert to radioactive glass? That would strike an ugly precedent.

Nuking Japan to end WW2 was an ugly precedent too, but it worked.

Ugly? How was it ugly?

100,000 lives vs. an invasion force where millions would have died. The numbers speak for themselves, those nukes were lifesavers.

Well, it depends on how you look at it.  Most things indicate that the nuking was more for intimidation than anything else.  We had to prove to the Soviets that we had a weapon far beyond their capabilities.

This became an issue because of the USSR's handling of European territory in the closing months of the war.

For a few years, this held true and seemed to have somewhat of the desired effect on Soviet expansionism.  Of course, all of that changed after the Rosenbergs.

Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-08 12:07:03)

-Sh1fty- wrote:

It was 2 birds with one stone. I'm more pleased with the fact Japan stopped acting like a fucking bitch and realized how fucking butt raped they were. I really hate the Jap mentality of that era.

Nukes were a showoff more than anything else. Firebombings killed a lot more people.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

It was 2 birds with one stone. I'm more pleased with the fact Japan stopped acting like a fucking bitch and realized how fucking butt raped they were. I really hate the Jap mentality of that era.

Well, Japan is a strange culture.  They certainly are less militant today than they were back then, but they don't exactly teach their children the whole truth of why they got nuked.  Germany is much more honest in its education of history.   Hopefully, Japan will eventually become that way as well.

Turquoise wrote:

RDMC wrote:

Even better:

"if you anything more deadly then a stick and stone in your hands, hand it over drop it or be fired upon''

heh... well, that would be much harder to enforce.  I think allowing them handguns would be ok, but the fact that we do nothing about people walking around with AKs is just stupid.  We can't even fire upon people who loot the bodies of the terrorists we just shot.

You can't win a guerilla war with your hands tied behind your back (or with Wikileaks dipshits for that matter).

Well ROE or not, it is just hard to win a guerilla war period.

Last edited by RDMC (2011-01-08 12:59:21)

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

It was 2 birds with one stone. I'm more pleased with the fact Japan stopped acting like a fucking bitch and realized how fucking butt raped they were. I really hate the Jap mentality of that era.

Nukes were a showoff more than anything else. Firebombings killed a lot more people.

Firebombing required thousands of pounds of firebombs, hundreds of planes, etc.

With nukes you have one plane drop one bomb and it does the same damage + the area can't be lived in for years.

@ Japanese Culture

So what are they teaching the kids these days as to why they were bombed?

Nonetheless they were a show off. A kind of, look what we can do, now stop fighting us.

shifty stop posting.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Well they needed the Japs to understand they were fucked, since taking back the entire Pacific wasn't enough for 'em. I'm not disagreeing, I just think you're leaving important parts out.

They indeed hadn't gotten the message yet and dropping those bombs made sure that alot of US soldiers did not die in what would probably have been the bloodiest campaign in the pacific. And probably as for ending the war droppings those bombs was the best solution, but I also think it was mere showing off, as in look here everyone else, we the US now have possession over nukes, try and fuck with us now.

Turquoise wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

So what are they teaching the kids these days as to why they were bombed?

In general, the Japanese equivalent of precollegiate education glosses over much of the Japanese Imperialist period.  There isn't much emphasis on the Rape of Nanjing, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

Go down to the part that discusses examples under Japanese war crimes.  I would post it, but the forum formatting keeps fucking up.

Turq i'm pretty sure nearly every basic-level education system in any country glosses over the 'not so nice bits' of their history.

Example in 10 years of school we never did much (or anything) on the Harrying of the North or British involvement in Ireland (famine-troubles) or colonialism in Africa/Asia and the long term consequences of those.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

man these fuckin democrats, more like SPENDocrats amirite

let's start another war!

Thats good thinking, it'll save a ton of money.