Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
The Middle East & WWIII
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rochard" data-source="post: 5650642" data-attributes="member: 17155"><p>I disagree. </p><p></p><p>During WWII we bombed two cities in Japan. However, at the time this was considered a "super weapon" - nothing more than a "large bomb". Firebombing entire cities, in both Japan and Gemany, where a hundred thousand innocent people would die in one attack, was more common than most people know. </p><p></p><p>These it's a much different story. It's a moral issue, and any US President must a damn good reason to do so. We'll only fire off nukes if our country is threatened (as in invaded AND overwelmed), or if someone else nukes us first. </p><p></p><p>So far no one else in the Middle East except for our allies has nukes, so that's not much of an issue. Russia has nukes, but they'll never launch at any US occupied area because we'll launch back. If Iran had nukes and launched at Israel, Israel would fire back - and if they were unable you had better belive the US would. </p><p></p><p>I doubt nukes would even come into play - even small "tatical" nukes. </p><p></p><p>Warfare has changed. It took us a year of fighting to get through France and through to Belin. These days we can push a few buttons from a ship off shore and destroy an entire city, a government, or an entire army.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rochard, post: 5650642, member: 17155"] I disagree. During WWII we bombed two cities in Japan. However, at the time this was considered a "super weapon" - nothing more than a "large bomb". Firebombing entire cities, in both Japan and Gemany, where a hundred thousand innocent people would die in one attack, was more common than most people know. These it's a much different story. It's a moral issue, and any US President must a damn good reason to do so. We'll only fire off nukes if our country is threatened (as in invaded AND overwelmed), or if someone else nukes us first. So far no one else in the Middle East except for our allies has nukes, so that's not much of an issue. Russia has nukes, but they'll never launch at any US occupied area because we'll launch back. If Iran had nukes and launched at Israel, Israel would fire back - and if they were unable you had better belive the US would. I doubt nukes would even come into play - even small "tatical" nukes. Warfare has changed. It took us a year of fighting to get through France and through to Belin. These days we can push a few buttons from a ship off shore and destroy an entire city, a government, or an entire army. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
The Middle East & WWIII
Top