23-06-2005 15:31									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If the Yanks had been the only ones with nukes, I really believe they'd have declared war to the evil empire. The country is not adverse to war, especially when it's ideologically motivated.

	23-06-2005 15:37									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Saras - SP:WAW please spell out, I don't know computer games that well - and it looks interesting.

I agree with the invasion of Japan and Cold War analysis. Nukes are still working. Remember the recent India/Packistan border conflict. The Pakistanis declared that if India invaded Pakistan, the Pakistanis would use nukes against the invading forces, on Pakistani soil. The Indian government howled, threatened to escalate if that happened, and did not invade.

Israel probably exists today because of nukes. The problem there is that the existence of those has meant that Israel largely can get away without giving a damn about world opinion, resulting in some major human rights violations in their administration of the conquered territories. Definitely a double-edged sword.

Nukes keep the North Korean government immune from military pressure. It's a shame, as they are a particularly vicious dictatorship. On the other hand, the South Koreans and their other neighbors may find a way to get North Korea to peaceably, over the next half a century, integrate into the Asian economy. Compared to the losses of a military conflict, that might be a good thing, if it does happen.

Plus once terrorists get them, the first use might force a world-wide compact on controlling and limiting WMD’s. Note that the US has avoided those treaties for a variety of reasons, some legit, some stupid. However, the cost of a single nuclear (versus thermonuclear) attack pale in comparison to what will happen if genetically engineered agents, or nanotech weapons, get released. So remember, “Love the bomb.”

	23-06-2005 15:37									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's called mutual assured destruction for a reason.

	23-06-2005 15:58									#34
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Saras - SP:WAW please spell out, I don't know computer games that well - and it looks interesting.

It´s Steel Panthers: World at War.

A tactical Level Computergame, which plays in WW2.
You can Assemble a unit (germans, Japüanese, French, whatever you want, there are units for a lot of countries of this time)
and make either a single battle against another country,
or play a campaign, where your units gain experience with every battle and you can upgrade their equipment with more modern equipment, invented through the course of war.

It also has Equipment available during the post war years, so you can also construct scenarios playing a few years after 1945/46.

An t the best,
it is totally free (at least if you have a flatrate Internet connection [it´s quite large, more than 400 MB, so it is also better if you have a High Speed Connection] )
Here´s the URL of the official Homepage:

http://www.steelpanthersworldatwar.com/

	23-06-2005 20:38									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lancer techumseh, we all believe what we choose to believe. I've learned when presented with amazing statements just to enjoy them, wonder at them, and realize that none of it really matters. Nukes saved the Sovs from US & european aggression. Okally dokally, thanks for that.

Well, that was a good natured trashing. As always, I'm prepared to back up my assertions.

	23-06-2005 20:43									#36
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Well, that was a good natured trashing. As always, I'm prepared to back up my assertions.

ASSERTIONS

	23-06-2005 20:55									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

"If the Yanks had been the only ones with nukes, I really believe they'd have declared war to the evil empire. The country is not adverse to war, especially when it's ideologically motivated."

Spif, we were the only ones with nukes if you recall. What we did was very un-european. We did nothing! It's easy to see why you would expect an attack as that's the natural path for any european with half a chance it winning.

I'll get back with more responses later. I have to go to work soon. (and turn in my hundred word essay)

	23-06-2005 21:15									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Saras ASSERTIONS

Tecumseh is the new BAM: Backed-up Asserion Man

	23-06-2005 21:17									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lancer Spif, we were the only ones with nukes if you recall. What we did was very un-european. We did nothing! It's easy to see why you would expect an attack as that's the natural path for any european with half a chance it winning.

Ths US has a history of not waiting for its foes to attack it. Once the Cold war became really hot (when the containment doctrine meant that you had tens of thousands of soldiers killed), the US could have well started an offensive war against its greatest foe, which you perceived as a menace to yourselves as well as a menace for mankind as a whole.

	23-06-2005 21:24									#40
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

in your opinion you French person.

The French couldn't turn out a Washington remember, all you got was a Napoleon. So, the French have a revolution against a monarch and end up with a dictator.

:absurd silly troll mode off:

	23-06-2005 22:50									#41
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I would like to point out that the Nuking of Japan was a vast incresse in EFFICIENCY not LETHALITY. We had already been sending armadas of a thousand Bombers to Drop Firebombs on whole cities. These Fires are so hot that Asphalte burns and Gale force convection winds rush inward. The moral line between targeting "War Industry" and the wholesale anialition of Civilian populations had been crossed years ago. The Bomb simply made it a lot cheaper and Easier to do. The ICBM just made it faster.


This is one of the reasons I am not as conserned about Muslim Fundamentalism as many people. We in the "civilized" west have killed FAR FAR more people (other westerners too by the way) then Fundamentalist have managed. Now you might say its mearly a matter of resorces but if you look at the wealth their dictators waste you see its realy a matter of political will. The Fundamentalist movment is so marginal it is forced to rely in Suicide attacks, the lowest most desperate kind of attack used ONLY after the battle is truely lost. If Fundamentalism were to actualy become a viable Nuclear threat they would be wiped out like that. Retaliatin is by nature the most excesive when the ofending power is weakest.

	24-06-2005 00:36									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I have only one thing to say - Pashtun/Wahabi revolution in Pakistan. Then you have Fundamentlist Muslim bomb(s) - with non-precision delivery systems. Hopefully it will be targeted at India, not that I have anything against India, but it will either be India, the US, or Israel and I prefer it not be the US for personal reasons, and Israel would launch a whole s**tload of nukes accross much of the Muslim - estimates are they have 50 of the suckers.

	24-06-2005 02:50									#43
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Lancer I still agree with you Rufus. Anyway, I think that the US should have nuked a patch of ocean off of Tokyo. If the Japanese didn't give in, then nuke a city. Regarding the conventional defense of europe against the Sovs, the US was the nation most dedicated to it. We spent roughly double on defense as a percentage if GDP than most of our european NATO partners we were defending. I never did understand this. It's as if they stuck their heads in the sand and just wished it would go away. Which of course it eventually did. Very dangerous game they were playing though. Plus, the Germans insisting on holding em at the border was just incredible considering the order of battle. The lack of ground forces was the reason that the US turned tactical nukes over to German control, though it was considered joint control. Nobody believed that the US would use nukes to defend europe, and by so doing bring retaliation down on US cities. Germans with nukes scared the Sovs though, according to my understanding of the times. The lack of NATO ground forces also made the release of nukes inevitable if the Sovs were to be stopped. In every exercise at the time commanders used nukes as a last resort to avoid losing europe. Still, the europeans refused to put up the $ needed to build the ground force needed to prevent nuke release. Go figure. Yet, in hindsight maybe they were right. The Sovs never came, the nukes did their job. It's all good now.

In 1946 the US economy was nearly 50% of the world's economy. Europe simply didn't have the wherewithall to re-arm. It took Europe 15 years to recover from WW2. German re-armament has always been a sticky subject. Throughout most of the Cold War period we and our allies definitely felt that Germany should not attempt to proximate the grand size of the old Wehrmacht. The French you know bugged out of NATO for the better part of two decades anyway, and as for Britain during the early part of the period we actively encouraged them to retreat fro the old glory days of empire. That left Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Greece and Turkey - well, you see my point.

	25-06-2005 05:55									#44
	Got spare money?

Iirc we couldn't get europe to spend even 3% of their GNP...GDP, whatever measure they used, while the US was spending 6%. Granted in 1950 they hadn't anything to spare, but I'm talking about 1965 on, when the Sovs were approaching nuclear parity. Certainly they had the $ to defend themselves by then, but refused to use what was needed to put a strong enough force on the ground. That's why NATO would have had to use nukes if the Sovs invaded imo.

France dropping out was just criminal and deprived NATO of the depth it really needed. All of a sudden, with insufficient force, NATO couldn't give ground. The whole thing was nuts, but nukes saved europe in the end, so maybe they were right not to defend themselves fully.

I don't know, I have mixed feelings on the whole time. Glad to have lived through it, glad the world made it. It makes these times seem tranquil. People forget how it was...

	25-06-2005 05:59									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Yeah, I can remember going off to school during the Cuban missile crises. We lived by a missile base, and I didn't know whether a nuclear war would start that day. Very frightening.

	25-06-2005 06:17									#46
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor If the Yanks had been the only ones with nukes, I really believe they'd have declared war to the evil empire.

That flies in the face of history. In 1945 the US & UK were the only ones with nukes and they had big armies in Europe which could have done the job. They didn't go to war though, did they?

	25-06-2005 09:44									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Oerdin, I posted pretty much the same thing to Spiff, this was his response...

"Ths US has a history of not waiting for its foes to attack it. Once the Cold war became really hot (when the containment doctrine meant that you had tens of thousands of soldiers killed), the US could have well started an offensive war against its greatest foe, which you perceived as a menace to yourselves as well as a menace for mankind as a whole."

	25-06-2005 09:47									#48
	Tired of ads?

Zkrib, everything might not be peachy now, but how things were...

	25-06-2005 10:12									#49
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin That flies in the face of history. In 1945 the US & UK were the only ones with nukes and they had big armies in Europe which could have done the job. They didn't go to war though, did they?

The UK had NO nukes in 1945 and the US had almost none (they used the only two they had against Japan). Production slowly increased from 1946 on. Britain didn't have nukes until 1953, and France not until 1960.

The Soviets did their first A-bomb test in 1949 and had the H-bomb in 1955 (the US got it in 1952).

As you know, successful wars require public support. In any event there was no political possibility in 1945-47 of an attack of any kind on the (former) Soviet ally who had borne the brunt of the war against Hitler. Attempts to stoke up fear of Soviet aggression were in full swing when the Soviets announced their first successful test in 1949, the day before the conference to create NATO.

Their timing was superb. The news of the atomic test apparently hit the conference the same way the news of Napoleon's escape from Elba hit the Congress of Vienna!

	25-06-2005 12:03									#50
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly On the minus side, they will surely eventually end up in the hands of countries much less sane than those who faced off during the Cold War -- at which point, we're seriously fubarred.

I would hardly say Stalin and Khrushchev were models of sanity. They were almost as bad as Kim Jong-Il. It was a good thing we got the nukes first.

	25-06-2005 12:09									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

There is no evidence that either Kruschev or Stalin were insane. You can't understand history in those kind of terms. It just isn't rational.

	25-06-2005 12:22									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Kruschev was not insane. Stalin, however, may very well have been paranoid, and also very likely suffered from bouts of alchohol induced/magnified depression. As in sitting getting drunk and increasing the execution totals by fiat district by district for the NKVD (or whichever initials it had at that point). Not exactly the sanest behavior in anyones book.

	25-06-2005 12:37									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I think Stalin may well have been paranoid, but his behaviour should be understood mostly in terms of the history and politics of the day, including Bolshevik ideology and the history of the Russian Civil War. It's so easy to just paint complex characters in complex situations as "insane".

Hitler wasn't insane either, at least before the last couple of years. He was a fascist. That explains much more than "insane".

The American media is responsible for repeating claims that the enemies du jour of the US leaders are "insane", or "mad". I think that's where most of it comes from. Of course, it's just the crudest propaganda.

	25-06-2005 12:42									#54
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by techumseh There is no evidence that either Kruschev or Stalin were insane. You can't understand history in those kind of terms. It just isn't rational.

We can judge them by their actions in the past and deduce how they may have acted if we weren't holding The Bomb over their heads. Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler. Khruschev threatened to bury us while pounding his shoe on a table (in the UN!). Neither came close to defining "rational".

	25-06-2005 12:43									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Nonsense.

	25-06-2005 12:48									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

How so?

	25-06-2005 13:01									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Evil is not the same as insanity. Stupidity is not the same as madness.

Instead of taking the intellectually lazy path of describing Stalin's purges as "insane", why not ask why he did it? What were his motives, his interests? Were there some real threats to his power or to the Soviet Union? Who gained, and what did they gain?

Or Kruschev. Do you really think the shoe banging proves him insane? Does losing it once make you crazy? Does being a bit of a peasant mean you're nuts? Why DID he bang his shoe?

	25-06-2005 13:15									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Techumseh, I am not talking just the purges, but the drunken arbitrary behavior of increasing the Terror totals - as in the targets for random executions - late into the night while drinking. That is different than a purge, or even the kind of callously effective "terror" that can be used to control a state. I think one would have to stretch the definition of sane to cover that, and Stalin's other behavior, even in context, strongly supports the label of paranoid.

	25-06-2005 13:19									#59
	Put an end to popups!

I'm aware of what they believed was their reasons for what they did but being aware of an insane person's motivations doesn't make them any less insane.

	25-06-2005 13:21									#60
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think paranoid probably applies to Stalin. Does that make him "insane"? Maybe, but it's too easy. There's much more to it.

As for your assertions of drunkeness and inflating kill quotas, what's the evidence you're basing it on?