JasonR24 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Anyway, forget the missiles. This is the scariest thing I've ever read [ATTACH=CONFIG]213441[/ATTACH] And i bet it's still better than Windows 8 and has less microtransactions than Windows 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Why? Not one person has even been able to give a valid reason why we don't need trident. Not a valid reason as such but I believe the Germans don't have a submarine based system do they? Are they fearful of their nuclear position? Should they have it do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted July 20, 2016 Author Share Posted July 20, 2016 Anyway, forget the missiles. This is the scariest thing I've ever read [ATTACH=CONFIG]213441[/ATTACH] That's great! I can believe that they run an XP-based OS, but it's the name that cracks me up. Fantastic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Not a valid reason as such but I believe the Germans don't have a submarine based system do they? Are they fearful of their nuclear position? Should they have it do you think? Germany disallowed themselves any home grown nuclear arsenal by signing up to the Non Proliferation Treaty. However the US does station air dropped tactical weapons on German soil. They don't have a strategic capability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Germany disallowed themselves any home grown nuclear arsenal by signing up to the Non Proliferation Treaty. However the US does station air dropped tactical weapons on German soil. They don't have a strategic capability. I might be wrong, but I believe that the German airforce is trained and capable of using US owned tactical nukes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 According to Wiki: "German and Italian Tornados are capable of delivering US B61 nuclear bombs, which are made available through NATO" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado#Armament_and_equipment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annabella Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Ah, so the US was supposed to just donate billions of £ worth of weapons... Dont get me wrong, I am less than a fan of some of the American objectives of the war, but to accuse the allies of being mass murderers, whose primary intent was profit, is just pure ignorance. Think you need to reread. Dress it up as you like, we, the allies, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese governments sent their troops to murder others. How would you rather it be said? Don't get me wrong the axis had to be defeated, but there is no nice way of dressing it up. Did i say the primary objective was to make money? Industry makes lots of money from wars. That was the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Because I'm sure that material and manpower shortages, a loss of our skilled workforce, and nightly bombardment by the Luftwaffe were really in the interests of British industry... Besides, we had declared war legally, within the national and international frameworks of the time, so the word 'murder' is utterly incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_bandido Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 State backed murder? Internationally sanctioned murder? Technically legal murder? Any of those more suitable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 State backed self preservation and self defence would be better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Possibly relevant article on the BBC website today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36852805 It will be "interesting" to see what happens if America heads back to being more a more isolationist nation, as they were pre WW1 and pre WW2. They weren't exactly champing at the bit to get into either (not having a pop at the Americans here - that was just their policy at those times). I don't think that Roosevelt's first reaction when he heard that Pearl Harbour was being attacked was "Hot diggety! We're all gonna get rich out of this!" Besides, post WW2, America supplied about $120bn (in today's value) of aid to Europe in the form of grants and low-interest loans under the Marshall plan. Its difficult to find an accurate figure for the cost of the war, but it runs into the thousands of billions. They also taught the Japanese how to mass produce cars (based on their bomber manufacturing techniques), and look just how that ended up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozz Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 State backed murder? Internationally sanctioned murder? Technically legal murder? Any of those more suitable? No such thing as technically legal murder as murder by definition is illegal. 'Legal' murder is just killing. I also think saying it is murder is likely offensive to soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Massey Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 I didn't murder no one. And I wasn't paid to murder anyone either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_bandido Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 I also think saying it is murder is likely offensive to soldiers. Good for you. I'm sure soldiers fully understand the gravity of their job description. It's still incredibly naïve to suggest mass killing is okay for one side but should be vilified when perpetrated by the losing side. I highly doubt your common man wants war, this is the realm of business and politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Massey Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Good for you. I'm sure soldiers fully understand the gravity of their job description. It's still incredibly naïve to suggest mass killing is okay for one side but should be vilified when perpetrated by the losing side. I highly doubt your common man wants war, this is the realm of business and politics. Yeah we fully understand. We don't (except the very very small minority) commit murder. No where in our job description says murder, in fact nothing describes what we do is murder. And no one has ever said mass killings is ok. Think you may be getting confused with genocide and war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Good for you. I'm sure soldiers fully understand the gravity of their job description. It's still incredibly naïve to suggest mass killing is okay for one side but should be vilified when perpetrated by the losing side. I highly doubt your common man wants war, this is the realm of business and politics. Mass killing is never "okay". Sometimes it is a necessary evil, once all other options have been exhausted. Unless, of course, you believe things would have been better had we just let Hitler and Stalin have their way with the continent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Think you may be getting confused with genocide and war. Or the deliberate targetting of civillians, which is a very relevant topic given the rise of terrorist action round the world. Most of the major players in WW2 staged major air raids on civilian areas. In fact it may have been Britain that started it, both by accidentally bombing resedential areas during raids targetted on German industry and shortly after by deliberate action. The bombing of German cities by British bombers is what caused Hitler to switch from bombing military targets to UK cities during a critical stage of the Battle of Britian which gave Fighter Command time to regroup and recover and ultimately win the battle. America also bombed Germany and later on Japan. Japan obviously could not bomb Europe and America but I think they have a less than stellatr record with raids on countires that they could reach. Hitler also wanted a bomber that could reach America but it came too late in the war to be useful. Finally, the ultimate development of the V2 would have been a true ICBM with global reach. The strategic targetting of civillians by all sides remains a controvertial issue to this day. I'm not a big fan of revisionist history, especially by people who have had over 70 years of peace in which to review all the data and debate the actions of those in command at the time. But the fact all powers who were able to do this actualy did it means that in the prospect of a global war an equal deterrent is required to maintain a balance. If one side decides to publicly state that there is a line that they are not willing to cross in defense of their country (or their allies) then all an enemy has to do is be prepared to cross that line. This is exactly how terrorism works. In a "symmetric" war, combatants fight combatants and if combatants fight civillians on one side then equal retalliation can happen. In an assymmetric war (i.e US vs Vietnam, Russia vs Afghanistan, ISIS vs everyone else) one side sees the general populace as legitimate targets whereas the other side cannot justify targetting anything other than combatants. I would go as far as to say that no nation has ever fought an assymmetric war and won a decisive and lasting victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Good for you. I'm sure soldiers fully understand the gravity of their job description. It's still incredibly naïve to suggest mass killing is okay for one side but should be vilified when perpetrated by the losing side. I highly doubt your common man wants war, this is the realm of business and politics. I saw a comment online somewhere the other day that summed that kind of thing up nicely: "Decapitation with a sword is barbaric and wrong. Decapitation with a drone is civilised and ok". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Or the deliberate targetting of civillians, which is a very relevant topic given the rise of terrorist action round the world. Most of the major players in WW2 staged major air raids on civilian areas. In fact it may have been Britain that started it, both by accidentally bombing resedential areas during raids targetted on German industry and shortly after by deliberate action. The bombing of German cities by British bombers is what caused Hitler to switch from bombing military targets to UK cities during a critical stage of the Battle of Britian which gave Fighter Command time to regroup and recover and ultimately win the battle. America also bombed Germany and later on Japan. Japan obviously could not bomb Europe and America but I think they have a less than stellatr record with raids on countires that they could reach. Hitler also wanted a bomber that could reach America but it came too late in the war to be useful. Finally, the ultimate development of the V2 would have been a true ICBM with global reach. The strategic targetting of civillians by all sides remains a controvertial issue to this day. I'm not a big fan of revisionist history, especially by people who have had over 70 years of peace in which to review all the data and debate the actions of those in command at the time. But the fact all powers who were able to do this actualy did it means that in the prospect of a global war an equal deterrent is required to maintain a balance. If one side decides to publicly state that there is a line that they are not willing to cross in defense of their country (or their allies) then all an enemy has to do is be prepared to cross that line. This is exactly how terrorism works. In a "symmetric" war, combatants fight combatants and if combatants fight civillians on one side then equal retalliation can happen. In an assymmetric war (i.e US vs Vietnam, Russia vs Afghanistan, ISIS vs everyone else) one side sees the general populace as legitimate targets whereas the other side cannot justify targetting anything other than combatants. I would go as far as to say that no nation has ever fought an assymmetric war and won a decisive and lasting victory. I'd go so far as to say that in every major conflict of the past 100/120 years civilians have been intentionally targeted by one or both sides (simplifying it to say A vs B I know) at some point during said conflict. Particularly recently, in the Ukraine, Syria & Turkey and then going as far back as Dresden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 I'd go so far as to say that in every major conflict of the past 100/120 years civilians have been intentionally targeted by one or both sides (simplifying it to say A vs B I know) at some point during said conflict. Particularly recently, in the Ukraine, Syria & Turkey and then going as far back as Dresden. /QUOTE] Technology is a variable that has to be applied to that sentiment though. The reason for mass carpet bombing during WW2 were the limitations with technology within a 'total war' environment. Weapoms weren't accurate enough for precision strikes on a large scale. Given the technology we have now, there should be no excuse for the deliberate targeting of civilians, unless as a final threat/option to deter others from doing the same. Of course, the water is muddied somewhat by the likes of Boko Haram, ISIS, and Hamas using human Shields, and the weapons we make are only as accurate as the people operating them, people who will naturally make mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Bullitt Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 I saw a comment online somewhere the other day that summed that kind of thing up nicely: "Decapitation with a sword is barbaric and wrong. Decapitation with a drone is civilised and ok". /QUOTE] How do you decapitate someone with a drone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annabella Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 How do you decapitate someone with a drone? Fly low with sharp wings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 How do you decapitate someone with a drone? No idea. Think it was more of a metaphorical thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.