France back with NATO

[mmmeee0]

France has nuclear weapons. They don't have to be good shots.

[mgz]

And when was the last time a nuclear weapon was used on another country as part of an act of war/defense/offense ?

O wait thats right its was america using it on japan, so yea its kinda dumb to think people actually will use nukes.

[lx4]

De Gaulle once asked Kennedy if he was willing to sacrifice New York or Washington do defend Paris. When Kennedy answered yes De Gaulle said he believed him but he couldnt be sure the next president would be willing to, therefor France had to depend on itself.

 

[mgz]

De Gaulle once asked Kennedy if he was willing to sacrifice New York or Washington do defend Paris. When Kennedy answered yes De Gaulle said he believed him but he couldnt be sure the next president would be willing to, therefor France had to depend on itself.

 

Just like it did with the maginot line in WW2 ...

[AceHigh]

And when was the last time a nuclear weapon was used on another country as part of an act of war/defense/offense ?

O wait thats right its was america using it on japan, so yea its kinda dumb to think people actually will use nukes.

Do you... think before you speak?  

Let me ask you a question. When was the last time a country who has a nuclear arsenal failed to defend their land?... oh wait, this one is better: When was the last time a country who doesn't have nukes dared to attack a country who does? When was the last time a country with nukes dared to attack another country with nukes?

Basically nuke is a peacemaker. If a country has a nuclear weapon and a deliverance system, then no other country will ever invade them.

De Gaulle once asked Kennedy if he was willing to sacrifice New York or Washington do defend Paris. When Kennedy answered yes De Gaulle said he believed him but he couldnt be sure the next president would be willing to, therefor France had to depend on itself.

I don't think he would and it would be the right thing. As a leader you must take care of your own first. Basically if I was American president I would let the Europe burn in order to save even the shittiest city in USA, and of course the same principle would apply if I were a leader in an European country. Alliance and relations with other nations is a good thing but leaders have a duty to protect their own first.

[mgz]

And when was the last time a nuclear weapon was used on another country as part of an act of war/defense/offense ?

O wait thats right its was america using it on japan, so yea its kinda dumb to think people actually will use nukes.

Do you... think before you speak?  

Let me ask you a question. When was the last time a country who has a nuclear arsenal failed to defend their land?... oh wait, this one is better: When was the last time a country who doesn't have nukes dared to attack a country who does? When was the last time a country with nukes dared to attack another country with nukes?

Basically nuke is a peacemaker. If a country has a nuclear weapon and a deliverance system, then no other country will ever invade them.

De Gaulle once asked Kennedy if he was willing to sacrifice New York or Washington do defend Paris. When Kennedy answered yes De Gaulle said he believed him but he couldnt be sure the next president would be willing to, therefor France had to depend on itself.

I don't think he would and it would be the right thing. As a leader you must take care of your own first. Basically if I was American president I would let the Europe burn in order to save even the shittiest city in USA, and of course the same principle would apply if I were a leader in an European country. Alliance and relations with other nations is a good thing but leaders have a duty to protect their own first.

Yea countries dont attack other countries with nukes because a country that has nukes usually doesnt just have nukes, however that doesnt stop countries from assisting militaristic groups and or terrorist in their attempts to attack things like oh i dont know, the twin towers in NYC.

Terrorist attacks are performed by the terrorists yes, but countries like afghanistan were more or less run by these terrorists.

So yea nobody has really invaded countries with nukes as of late, but people and groups sponsored by countries sure do attack them.

There has been terrorist attacks all over europe, now some of them may or may not be from the kinds of groups that receive aid or financial support from countries who hate america or the UK or what have you.

You act like the countries that have nukes are in a complete state of peace where there is no violence nobody would dare mess with them.


Why? Because nukes while they are an effective deterrent are a last resort weapon, thats what the rest of an army is for SO YOU DONT NEED YOUR NUKES.

[AceHigh]

Terrorist act is not an invasion.

Supporting terrorist groups is not an invasion, learn the difference.

Terrorist threats are dealt with SWAT teams, and operatives of SFOD/GIGN/GSG9/GIS/FSK/SAS/Spetsnaz, not the army. You don't roll out a tank or a helicopter to fight a terrorist threat.


That being said Afghanistan has never landed their troops in New York in attempt to capture it. Countries with a central government can, but they won't because they know that retaliation will be with a nuke right in the HQ where they are.

So yea nobody has really invaded countries with nukes as of late, but people and groups sponsored by countries sure do attack them.

No, nobody has invaded countries with nukes EVER.

[lx4]

I don't think he would and it would be the right thing. As a leader you must take care of your own first. Basically if I was American president I would let the Europe burn in order to save even the shittiest city in USA, and of course the same principle would apply if I were a leader in an European country. Alliance and relations with other nations is a good thing but leaders have a duty to protect their own first.

With an attitude like that the enemy will move his position further one step at a time until you no longer is in a position to defend yourself.

Since Im in the mood of quoting people today, Reagan put it very well in one of his earliest speeches.  

Every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, a policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance.

[mgz]

Terrorist act is not an invasion.

Supporting terrorist groups is not an invasion, learn the difference.

Terrorist threats are dealt with SWAT teams, and operatives of SFOD/GIGN/GSG9/GIS/FSK/SAS/Spetsnaz, not the army. You don't roll out a tank or a helicopter to fight a terrorist threat.


That being said Afghanistan has never landed their troops in New York in attempt to capture it. Countries with a central government can, but they won't because they know that retaliation will be with a nuke right in the HQ where they are.

So yea nobody has really invaded countries with nukes as of late, but people and groups sponsored by countries sure do attack them.

No, nobody has invaded countries with nukes EVER.

i didnt say they invaded, i said attacked you dont need to invade a country to attack them.

And what the fuck do you think the US army is in afghanistan for ? Oh wait the entire country that was run by the taliban was considered a terrorist threat so the army dealt with it.

[AceHigh]

Yes yes yes, I know "together we are stronger". In reality it goes like this: countries will help the allied until they are compromised themselves.

What did Germany do at the end of the WWII? They retreated all nearly all they troops back to the Germany to defend their fatherland. What did Georgia do after Russian retaliation? They called back their battalion from Iraq.

What I was pointing to is that if New York or Washington was at a real threat to be overtaken, then any leader with common sense would call back all troops that are stationed around the world and defend their homeland.

i didnt say they invaded, i said attacked you dont need to invade a country to attack them.

In that case you never answered my question, try again:

Let me ask you a question. When was the last time a country who has a nuclear arsenal failed to defend their land?... oh wait, this one is better: When was the last time a country who doesn't have nukes dared to attack a country who does? When was the last time a country with nukes dared to attack another country with nukes?

And note, terrorist organisations are not a country. Even Afghanistan who doesn't even have a central government.

[mgz]

And when was the last time a nuclear weapon was used on another country as part of an act of war/defense/offense ?

O wait thats right its was america using it on japan, so yea its kinda dumb to think people actually will use nukes.

Do you... think before you speak?  

Let me ask you a question. When was the last time a country who has a nuclear arsenal failed to defend their land?... oh wait, this one is better: When was the last time a country who doesn't have nukes dared to attack a country who does? When was the last time a country with nukes dared to attack another country with nukes?

Basically nuke is a peacemaker. If a country has a nuclear weapon and a deliverance system, then no other country will ever invade them.

De Gaulle once asked Kennedy if he was willing to sacrifice New York or Washington do defend Paris. When Kennedy answered yes De Gaulle said he believed him but he couldnt be sure the next president would be willing to, therefor France had to depend on itself.

I don't think he would and it would be the right thing. As a leader you must take care of your own first. Basically if I was American president I would let the Europe burn in order to save even the shittiest city in USA, and of course the same principle would apply if I were a leader in an European country. Alliance and relations with other nations is a good thing but leaders have a duty to protect their own first.

Defending against terrorist attacks is an attack on a country which is typically refered to as its land, so the terrorist attacks in european countries, and things like 9/11 are attacks on our land that werent defended by countries that have nukes

[AceHigh]

FUCK terrorists! What country attacked another country that has nukes?

Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist, what he did was not to attack a country, but a criminal act to create fear and terror. By your classification a hacker in UK looking for UFO hacking Pentagon would be a start world war 3. So answer me, did a nation attack another nation that has nukes?

[mgz]

FUCK terrorists! What country attacked another country that has nukes?

Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist, what he did was not to attack a country, but a criminal act to create fear and terror. By your classification a hacker in UK looking for UFO hacking Pentagon would be a start world war 3. So answer me, did a nation attack another nation that has nukes?

Afghanistan under the control of the taliban directly supported osama bin laden, and as such you could more or less say afghanistan attacked america on 9/11

and terrorists that are supported by nations are more or less a guerrilla army of savages just because they arent called the countries army doesnt mean they arent supported by a country ect ect.

O, and japan in WW2 attacked america via pearl harbor.

And timothy mcveigh is a terrorist who acted not by others will, it was his decision to want to even blow that shit up, he didnt have guys saying here tim some living money heres the money for your explosives heres money for living in america for your life and a business front to smuggle the money to you with. Heres weapons heres plans heres 6 other guys to go call about setting up the bombs.

Compare the methods of which timothy mcveigh vs the methods and support network behind most large scale terrorist attacks and its obvious what the difference is.

[AceHigh]

Afghanistan under the control of the taliban directly supported osama bin laden, and as such you could more or less say afghanistan attacked america on 9/11

and terrorists that are supported by nations are more or less a guerrilla army of savages just because they arent called the countries army doesnt mean they arent supported by a country ect ect.

And I can more or less say it's bullshit. Bin Laden himself is Saudi Arabian so this already tells us that a terrorist network like that is multinational and is not associated with/represents one country. Also during the cold war both USA and Russia supported financially and technologically guerilla armies around the world, still you will not find in the records any historical record of war between those two.

O, and japan in WW2 attacked america via pearl harbor.

Pre-nuke Era, you just failed there on many levels.

Compare the methods of which timothy mcveigh vs the methods and support network behind most large scale terrorist attacks and its obvious what the difference is.

Yes, it is more organized like a Mafia, still it is stupid to say that Sicily repeatedly attacked Italy during the last 200 years.

[mgz]

Afghanistan under the control of the taliban directly supported osama bin laden, and as such you could more or less say afghanistan attacked america on 9/11

and terrorists that are supported by nations are more or less a guerrilla army of savages just because they arent called the countries army doesnt mean they arent supported by a country ect ect.

And I can more or less say it's bullshit. Bin Laden himself is Saudi Arabian so this already tells us that a terrorist network like that is multinational and is not associated with/represents one country. Also during the cold war both USA and Russia supported financially and technologically guerilla armies around the world, still you will not find in the records any historical record of war between those two.

O, and japan in WW2 attacked america via pearl harbor.

Pre-nuke Era, you just failed there on many levels.

Compare the methods of which timothy mcveigh vs the methods and support network behind most large scale terrorist attacks and its obvious what the difference is.

Yes, it is more organized like a Mafia, still it is stupid to say that Sicily repeatedly attacked Italy during the last 200 years.

Israel has never admitted a nuclear capability, but defense analysts have concluded that Israel has the most extensive and sophisticated nuclear arsenal outside of the major powers.

Talented physicists came to Israel from Europe as a result of World War II, and after Israel was founded as an independent state in 1948, immediately launched the nuclear program. Since Israel was surrounded by much larger Arab states hostile to its existance, it was essential to develop a nuclear deterrent as the ultimate line of defense.

During the 1950's Israel and France collaborated to bring both into the atomic weapons club. A research reactor was built with the assistance of French engineers at Dimona, in the Negev desert of southern Israel near Beersheba. In December 1960, before the reactor was operational, it was revealed by US intelligence. Israel announced that it was for "peaceful purposes" only and denied nuclear weapons intentions. During the 1960s, the US and Israel sparred over inspections and, it is believed, Israel evaded US attempts to limit the program. The US was not supplying Israel with arms or any security guarantees so Israel had no incentive to sacrifice its defense capability to meet US demands.

In 1962 the Dimona reactor went critical, and the French helped build a plutonium plant, believed to have been completed in 1964 or 1965. The security at Dimona (officially the Negev Nuclear Research Center) is stringent, supporting its military purpose. There is little doubt that some time in the late sixties Israel became the sixth nation to manufacture nuclear weapons, perhaps producing three to five bombs a year.

Nuclear collaboration between Israel and South Africa seems to have developed around 1967 and continued through the 70s and 80s. During this period South Africa was Israel's primary supplier of uranium for Dimona. It is unknown what role Israel had, if any, in the September 22, 1979 nuclear explosion in the south Indian Ocean which is widely believed to have been a joint test by Israel and South Africa.

Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1968 international agreement designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, a fact that has often been used by opponents to criticize Israel. But, Israel has few options for strategic defense against the massive capabilities of its enemies, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and their Scuds. While signing the treaty would eliminate a propaganda tool against Israel, the loss of the weapons would be too high a price for Israel to pay.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/892941.stm

Googled does israel have nuclear weapons.

Palestine and Palestinians launch direct attacks on Israel

[Forte Grazia]

Then any leader with common sense would call back all troops that are stationed around the world and defend their homeland.

George Bush = No common sense 

[AceHigh]

Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1968 international agreement designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, a fact that has often been used by opponents to criticize Israel. But, Israel has few options for strategic defense against the massive capabilities of its enemies, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and their Scuds. While signing the treaty would eliminate a propaganda tool against Israel, the loss of the weapons would be too high a price for Israel to pay.

Oh look at that! I wonder how long Israel would have lasted if there were not rumours that they had nukes.

Palestine and Palestinians launch direct attacks on Israel

That they do, except by Palestinians you mean Hamas, a terrorist organisation. Also if it were not for the rumours of the nukes you can bet that real countries like Syria and Jordan would most likely have attacked Israel already. And Palestine which is more of an area designated by UN resolution then a real country attacking Israel is like Chechnya attacking Russia. Also there is no state called "Palestine", there is one called "West Bank" however. At last West Bank is technically an Israel occupied territory with an interim agreement between Israel and PLO.

So if I would compare Palestine's status to something similar I would compare it to Guam and Puerto Rico.

George Bush = No common sense

Bush is history now.

[mmmeee0]

And when was the last time a nuclear weapon was used on another country as part of an act of war/defense/offense ?

O wait thats right its was america using it on japan, so yea its kinda dumb to think people actually will use nukes.

Look at history, nuclear weapons have been used in anger twice. Why am I the dumb on in this conversation? If you're trying to tell me that nukes are somehow not an issue when they've killed more than enough people to prove otherwise what does that show about you? Just because the event was over sixty years ago doesn't mean that you can piss off nations that have them today. Think before you speak, please.

[AceHigh]

Also they were used for the first time, nobody knew the effects of radiation and shit like that. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the intro of the nuclear era. It's because of those events that nukes keep peace today.

[Forte Grazia]

Yes, by sacrificing the Japs we sure showed those Russians who was the boss. 

Perhaps Israel will take a Palestinian boy and attach him to a Nuclear device to show that they mean business next time? 

Haven't we all grown beyond this tit for tat just yet? 

States are not people, they don't get mad, don't have emotions and overkill isn't necessary. We have the capability to take down terrorists with highly informed agents and precise military technology. There is no point in using Nukes and killing life not related with the enemy unnecessarily.