Post by Sagramor
had people invade your country, bomb your homes, drag your family off to death camps, if you had to face starvation, and disease, and looting
None of which happened to America.
Actually,
totally did. Most of it
perpetrated by America, but, you know, war is Hell.
Post by Sagramor
Regardless, I don't know that nuclear weapons will ever be used against civilian forces again, thankfully.
Ummm, dude...
DUA?
And, Magician:
They have been shown to be developing a nuclear weapon (under the guise that they are just wanting to generate electricity, however, they have enriched their Uranium far beyond what is needed for nuclear power generation).
Not really. The High-Western media, they say there is, but, in fact, some of the places they claim as being used to build the silos are under !@#$ing mountains, stuff like that. The information is not as secure as you might think.
War, at that time, was...well, war. Your goal was to eliminate the enemy, before they eliminated you. At that time, the typical military strategy was to just run as many bodies straight into a hail of bullets, and hope that the enemy ran out of bullets, or that you managed to get enough live soldiers through the lines to take a position.
I think you are taking one battle, Stalingrad (all hail the glory of fallen blood), and using it as an example for the whole war. It wasn't like that; it wasn't WWI.
There is no need for all countries to have nuclear weapons, especially those with unstable governments. The way the structure is set up, we have opposing sides, both with sufficient nuclear power to assure the destruction of the other. For the most part, all countries are either aligned with one side, or the other. The idea is simple...neither side can 'win' a nuclear war, so neither side should ever use their arsenal.
You know, once, back in the beggining of the XXth century, the powers in Europe though that something similar could happen. The idea was to have two vast standing armies (England, Italy, Russia and France x Germany, Austria, The Ottomans), each acting as the other deterrent. There was only one problem with the theory:
it was bollocks.
The wildcard we have now, is a perfect example of this. NK should never have been allowed to develop a nuke, because now they do not have to play by the MAD rules.
Neither do the USA, France, England, Israel, India, China, Russia - why should these countries (in no way sane ones) have that right while others don't. It's a 'in for a penny, in for a pound' situation. What is happening right now in the world is nothing more than an effort to maintain a technological oligopoly.
Post by MyTie
Ummm, dude...
DUA?
Oh geez. You know what I meant. Let's not nit pick.
Post by Sagramor
Ummm, dude...
DUA?
Oh geez. You know what I meant. Let's not nit pick.
I'm being totally serious when I say that no, apparently I did not know what you meant. Are you talking about nuclear weapons or of mass destruction? They are not mutually inclusive; DUA has many of the awful aftereffects of nuclear weaponry: cancer, annihilation of land, genetic problems; napalm on the other hand, has, while not on the same level, a similar psychological and physical effect of the mass-destructive quality of the atomic bomb.
The details, Mr. MyTie; in the Wowhead forums, God still resides in the details.
^ definitely doesn't have an agenda
I'm pro-anti.
Post by MyTie
The details, Mr. MyTie; in the Wowhead forums, God still resides in the details.
Ain't nobody got time for that