Gee, no. For you see, I’ve been in a cave for the last fifty years. With my fingers in my ears.
But if no one else had had nukes, we wouldn’t have needed MAD.
You seriously believe that Stalin had been the only one in the world with nukes, he wouldn’t have used the? If so, you’re out of your mind. But that’s irrelevant, because the choice wasn’t between only the US having and only Russia having nukes. It was between just the US having nukes and the US and Russia both having nukes.
No, it doesn’t. It assumes that democracy is better than selfish bastards deciding the future of the country. Do you really think that isn’t true?
Is it also hypocritical to put soldiers in POW camps if they fight for the wrong side?
Unoundo
I find that hard to believe. First, it would require that the US have no concern for the lives of people in other countries (which is entirely inconsistent with our history) and secondly, it would require that the other country have little concern for the lives of their own citizens (otherwise they would surrender).
“Nuerous civilians” and “holocaust” are completely different things.
How does that support your position? The US didn’t use nukes. Whether individual Americans wanted to is irrelevant.
And that’s a bad thing?
Tamerlane
Just because there was warning, that doesn’t mean it was provoked. China had no business dictating policy to the US. What, were they afraid the US would invade China? :rolleyes:
I cannot tell you how much mirth this sentence has given me in the past three minutes. I feel a little bit like the first time I took a deep puff off a great grass joint and just couldn’t contain the giggles anymore. Thank you The Ryan, thank you. Ah shit! It doesn’t stop, I’m dying here… my stomach hurts. It just goes in circles and circles. Can you share more wisdom like that? Please?
As for the rest of the gibberish you posted it has all already been addressed in the thread.
I’ll sum it up again: we don’t know what would have happened so it’s pointless to speculate. To accuse either side of being trigger happier is not correct, it cannot be correct. Why? It’s pure and simple logic. No side fired their nukes offensively during the cold war. Both sides entertained the idea, but as far as there is not a huge cover up in the history books no one did. Capice?
To get back to the original question. I believe spying SHOULD be a capital offence. I also believe spying should be exempt from the Constitutional restraint against cruel and unusual punishment. I believe Hanson should have been tortured until he revealed the full depth of his spying for Russia. And then he should have been taken out and hung from the nearest lightpole.
Actually I think there might have been a bit of that. Remember that the KMT had only been expelled from the mainland the year before, neither side had a good understanding of one another and the Chinese communists were famously paranoid. I think they had at least an apprehension of the U.S. possibly opening a front in the north while backing a cross-channel KMT operation in the south. At the very least they regarded Korea as within their “historical sphere of interest” and both resented ( in a Monroe Doctrine sort of way ) non-Chinese interference in the region and had a great concern about a united, western-oriented Korea sitting so close to what was/would become a premiere industrial area.
Now I think you can argue that this was both arrogant and even perhaps ignorant, but from where they say it was highly provocative on both a political and cultural level.
Not at all saying the U.S. was in the wrong. By no means. Just that I think some of the old Chinese hands in the State dept. or elsewhere might have reasonably predicted that the Chinese would feel threatened and blow.
Almost speechless I am. Might I volunteer that this could be somewhat counterproductive to the task at hand since torture has, in the past been found to at times distort the witness’ depositions in as much as that one tends say most any hogwash and nonsense to stop the pain.
Are you tortured when you deposition your posts BS?
I’ll let better and more able men and women dissect the rest of your post. I’ll just add that overall it might be a little strongly worded and I am sure that you meant something a little less asinine to come out, right?
150 years ago the US was on a mission of conquest designed to all but eradicate the native nations (of course, those were not ‘other countries’; those were indigenous peoples). I know attitudes have changed overall both within and without government, but I won’t assume they may never change back. Look at how much power McCarthy assumed 50 some-odd years ago.
Saddam seemingly cares not for his citizens. Neither did Mullah Omar. Neither did Pol Pot or Idi Amin. And I’d hardly characterize Josef Stalin as entirely stable.
Simply asserting something as true hardly qualfies as “pure and simple logic”. Besides which, the US refrained from offensive military actions even when it was the only country with the bomb. No other country did so. You might say that, given the opportunity, other countries would have done so, but that would be speculating, which you have come out as against.