Space Weapons

[Ex-FB]

Israel was attacked by Hezbollah when their members came across into Israeli territory and attacked and kidnapped Israeli troops. Israel had every right to retaliate. If you ask me their response was too tame because they didn’t bomb Lebanon back to the “stone age” as you put it but instead used targeted bombing to kill Hezbollah terrorists that were firing rockets into civilian areas.

I remember the Reagan years as well and I can remember the leftist howling with discontent about how he was confronting the Soviet Union. History has show that confronting the Soviets was the correct thing to do so it looks as if your fear was unfounded back then. Somehow I don’t think you have changed and again if we look at history, your history, you were wrong back then, its likely your wrong today as well.

X

I'm not going to touch the first paragraph

As for the second, what is with this leftist label that you bandy about. Back "then", I was a British soldier, and although had no great love of Margaret Thatcher, thought she was much a much better choice than the idiot in charge of the labour party. So, as you can see, hardly a "lefty".

I haven't changed much, and history has proven my point. The Soviets where never really an active threat, they were far more concerned with defending themselves from the West. Kinda funny, but hey that's the way your average soviet looked at it. Individually we got along a fine. When I was home on leave I used to regularly go drinking with the Russian fishermen, they were/are a very decent people (a little bit mad, but on the whole decent). Reagan on the other hand seemed to have a dubious grasp on sanity at times. Not so bad when your grandfather only has the remote control for the telly, but not so good when he has his finger on nuclear armageddon.

So, I stand by what I say, "We were more scared of Reagan starting world war III than the Soviets." But apparently, I have an inaccurate memory of this part of my life, as you claim that I am wrong, and I obviously wasn't more scared of Reagan starting World War III. Somehow you have this "insight" into my memories of the time and can actually disagree with the way I remember my feelings. Wow.

[MasterBlaster]

I haven't changed much, and history has proven my point. The Soviets where never really an active threat, they were far more concerned with defending themselves from the West. Kinda funny, but hey that's the way your average soviet looked at it.

So they developed first strike nuclear weapon systems in the 50's - 60s because they were generally nice guys who were misunderstood and scared of Reagan. Gotta love how spaghetti western movies drove one of the most powerfull nations in the world into a nuclear arms race.

[Ex-FB]

So they developed first strike nuclear weapon systems in the 50's - 60s because they were generally nice guys who were misunderstood and scared of Reagan. Gotta love how spaghetti western movies drove one of the most powerfull nations in the world into a nuclear arms race.

Nah - I never said that. All I said was that during the cold war I figured that Reagan was more likely to push the button than the Soviets. Draw whatever conclusions you want about good vs. evil, that's not what I'm discussing.

[MasterBlaster]

Nah - I never said that. All I said was that during the cold war I figured that Reagan was more likely to push the button than the Soviets. Draw whatever conclusions you want about good vs. evil, that's not what I'm discussing.

no you said
"We were more scared of Reagan starting world war III than the Soviets."
not I

and "The Soviets where never really an active threat, they were far more concerned with defending themselves from the West"

So do you categorize first strike nuclear weapons and defensive? The Soviets were an active threat to the US as was the US to the Soviets. and that old grandfather figure you painted put enough pressure on the soviets to break them. Did you ever consider that thinking Reagan would be the one to push the button had something to do with that? Do you think we would be here with the ability to argue about it if the other side broke first?

[Ex-FB]

no you said
"We were more scared of Reagan starting world war III than the Soviets."
not I

Correct. So if I can come up with one other person who felt the same way, then I am correct? If you really wish to find such a person I'm staring across my desk at one. Do you wish him to log in and confirm this, or will you conceed the point?

and "The Soviets where never really an active threat, they were far more concerned with defending themselves from the West"

So do you categorize first strike nuclear weapons and defensive? The Soviets were an active threat to the US as was the US to the Soviets. and that old grandfather figure you painted put enough pressure on the soviets to break them. Did you ever consider that thinking Reagan would be the one to push the button had something to do with that? Do you think we would be here with the ability to argue about it if the other side broke first?

What is the difference between a first strike nuclear missile and any other type of nucelar missile? (I honestly don't know). I fear you are trying to draw me into an argument that does not exist. Quite simply, I stated that we were more scared of Reagan pushing the button than the Russians. That is a fact. Nobody can deny that we felt that way. So what would your point be?

[MasterBlaster]

Correct. So if I can come up with one other person who felt the same way, then I am correct? If you really wish to find such a person I'm staring across my desk at one. Do you wish him to log in and confirm this, or will you conceed the point?

No, He's probably a canadian. I will not take another canadian seriously until they revoke the 5 foot rule. Any way, I may have misread, Taken in context it appeared to me that you were voicing the opinion for the entire british army, and vodka filled fishermen.

What is the difference between a first strike nuclear missile and any other type of nucelar missile? (I honestly don't know). I fear you are trying to draw me into an argument that does not exist. Quite simply, I stated that we were more scared of Reagan pushing the button than the Russians. That is a fact. Nobody can deny that we felt that way. So what would your point be?

Exactly what it says it is. If you were a british soldier in the 1980's then you should know what the difference between a first strike weapon and a retaliatory weapon is. The simple run down is, one is designed to withstand a nuclear attack and then fire back (Underground ICBM Silos and the like) and one is designed to get to a target quickly "first".(Subs or rocket launchers in cuba). Both sides had both types and to say that The soviets only intention was to protect themselvs from the big bad boogyman(West) is being naive.

[Ex-FB]

No, He's probably a canadian. I will not take another canadian seriously until they revoke the 5 foot rule. Any way, I may have misread, Taken in context it appeared to me that you were voicing the opinion for the entire british army, and vodka filled fishermen.
.

Exactly what it says it is. If you were a british soldier in the 1980's then you should know what the difference between a first strike weapon and a retaliatory weapon is. The simple run down is, one is designed to withstand a nuclear attack and then fire back (Underground ICBM Silos and the like) and one is designed to get to a target quickly "first".(Subs or rocket launchers in cuba). Both sides had both types and to say that The soviets only intention was to protect themselvs from the big bad boogyman(West) is being naive.

My understanding of the subject is very limited, but I would say both are dual use. A missile in a silo can be used for first strike (especially from Montana/UK), and a missile in a sub is most definetly capable of being used as a retaliatory weapon (due to the difficulty of traking the aforementioned vessel). But like I say, what I know about nuclear missiles counld be written on the back of a packet of Marlborough.

As for first strike, I cannot invisage a scenario where an attacker would use a massive nuclear strike as their opening gambit. I can only see it as a last ditch, enemy at the gates sort of weapon. After all, what use would a radioactive country be. So, I do believe mutually assured destruction did keep the (tense) peace for a long while, and continues to do so. Because of this, I honestly do believe that the Soviets had no intention of using it as an offensive weapon. I also believe that almost every US president before and after had/has no intention of using it as an offensive weapon (though I won't rule out Bush just yet). But Reagan always scared me because he seemed, how can I put this politely.... a bit mad.

Not frothing at the mouth mad, but mad in the way nice old uncles go when they start to smell of cabbage and give you 5 pence and ask you to buy a loaf of bread and a packet of woodbines. My kids would argue that I am halfway there already.... but the most devestation I can do is leave the telly tuned on to the discovery channel after I fall asleep in the afternoon. I suspect Reagan would have been great fun to go the pub with, but it didn't make the thought of him being in charge any the less scary.

[DeadEyes]

I'm not going to touch the first paragraph

I will. The soliders were captured near Aitaa al-Chaab. Guess which country that's in, I'll give you a hint it's not Israel.

[Xanith]

As for the second, what is with this leftist label that you bandy about. Back "then", I was a British soldier, and although had no great love of Margaret Thatcher, thought she was much a much better choice than the idiot in charge of the labour party. So, as you can see, hardly a "lefty".

I haven't changed much, and history has proven my point. The Soviets where never really an active threat, they were far more concerned with defending themselves from the West. Kinda funny, but hey that's the way your average soviet looked at it. Individually we got along a fine. When I was home on leave I used to regularly go drinking with the Russian fishermen, they were/are a very decent people (a little bit mad, but on the whole decent). Reagan on the other hand seemed to have a dubious grasp on sanity at times. Not so bad when your grandfather only has the remote control for the telly, but not so good when he has his finger on nuclear armageddon.

So, I stand by what I say, "We were more scared of Reagan starting world war III than the Soviets." But apparently, I have an inaccurate memory of this part of my life, as you claim that I am wrong, and I obviously wasn't more scared of Reagan starting World War III. Somehow you have this "insight" into my memories of the time and can actually disagree with the way I remember my feelings. Wow.

I wasn’t calling you a leftist, I was referring (in general) to how the left felt back when Reagan was confronting the Soviet Union. But if the label fits, wear it.

You seem to formulate or at least try to reinforce your opinion about the Soviet Union by saying, “Hey I went drinking with some Russian fisherman and they seemed like ok fellows”. Its kind of like saying hey I went to Germany in 1939 and went drinking with these German fisherman, they were great guys so that Hitler fellow and those Nazi’s must be ok too.

The Soviet ruling class was anything but “ok”. You could have probably walked around Russia during the Cold War and met a lot of nice people but that doesn’t mean their government reflects the hospitality of the small amount of people you met.

I am glad you were scared, because that means the Russians were scared too. Like I said this approach seemed to work, as the Soviet Union fell apart shortly after.

However I have to say I do feel a little sorry for you. Not sure why you were scared that US was going to start a nuclear exchange with the Soviets, most people feared the opposite due to the fact after WWII the Soviets seized control of Eastern Europe and feared they were going to do the same with Western Europe (just to point out this is the opposite of what the US did, they left Western Europe to govern itself and provided money to get Western Europe back on its feet again).

X

[Ex-FB]

I wasn’t calling you a leftist, I was referring (in general) to how the left felt back when Reagan was confronting the Soviet Union. But if the label fits, wear it.

Fair enough. I thought you were calling me a leftie (which is one of my pet peeves - classifying people into left or right wing as if the world is so simple). But you weren't, so sorry, I misunderstood you.

You seem to formulate or at least try to reinforce your opinion about the Soviet Union by saying, “Hey I went drinking with some Russian fisherman and they seemed like ok fellows”. Its kind of like saying hey I went to Germany in 1939 and went drinking with these German fisherman, they were great guys so that Hitler fellow and those Nazi’s must be ok too.

The Soviet ruling class was anything but “ok”. You could have probably walked around Russia during the Cold War and met a lot of nice people but that doesn’t mean their government reflects the hospitality of the small amount of people you met.

Nah - It's based more on the way they view the west and what they would have to gain from starting a nuclear war (i.e. very little).

I am glad you were scared, because that means the Russians were scared too. Like I said this approach seemed to work, as the Soviet Union fell apart shortly after.

This isn't a good thing. It's like living in a street next to a gun weilding nutter on one side and a drug dealer on the other, and saying that it's good to be scared he'll start a shooting match one day with your kids in the middle.

However I have to say I do feel a little sorry for you. Not sure why you were scared that US was going to start a nuclear exchange with the Soviets, most people feared the opposite due to the fact after WWII the Soviets seized control of Eastern Europe and feared they were going to do the same with Western Europe (just to point out this is the opposite of what the US did, they left Western Europe to govern itself and provided money to get Western Europe back on its feet again).

X

In general it was really just Reagan starting it that scared us. As I said, he seemed a little bit barking at times Only a madman would start a nuclear war....... oh hang on, look over there, there's one with his finger on the button

I guess that's one of the reasons I don't like Bush, he doesn't seem able to foresee the consequences of his actions. Thankfully, I don't think he would start a nuclear war, but I do think that he is forcing parts of the world to get nuclear weapons of their own, so that they too can be a part of the MAD crowd.

[Xanith]

I guess that's one of the reasons I don't like Bush, he doesn't seem able to foresee the consequences of his actions. Thankfully, I don't think he would start a nuclear war, but I do think that he is forcing parts of the world to get nuclear weapons of their own, so that they too can be a part of the MAD crowd.

I think there are always going to be people who feel the way you do. History is full of people that never wish to use confrontation as a way of dealing with problems. It’s perfectly understandable, and human, that people want to talk through problems, sign peace treaties, and non-aggression packs.

The problem comes when talking no longer is a viable option anymore. This is when the “peace crowd” fails to see military action is necessary and tend to put off dealing with a problem until it is too late. Winston Churchill considered himself a failure after WWII because as he said he failed to convince enough people about the growing problem of the Nazi’s inside of Germany. By the time Europe decided to deal with the Nazi problem it cost millions of lives and the destruction of most of the infrastructure of Europe.

Now we have Iran who has decided to push ahead with its nuclear program. If you take the time and actually listen to the current leader of Iran you will see he is consistently calling for the destruction of Israel and the West. My fear is history is going to repeat itself and once again we will do nothing and wait until there is a mushroom cloud over some city before we wake up. Somehow I think we are doomed to repeating the same mistakes over and over.

X

[Ex-FB]

Excellent post by Shaggy Hiker.

I think there are always going to be people who feel the way you do. History is full of people that never wish to use confrontation as a way of dealing with problems. It’s perfectly understandable, and human, that people want to talk through problems, sign peace treaties, and non-aggression packs.

Actually, I have failed to portray my views properly, I in no way feel the way you describe. I am a great believer that war solves lots of problems. I was an avid supporter of the first gulf war, and thought that it was excellently executed. Likewise, there have been plenty of other times when violence has been the correct response to a political situation. My problem with the second gulf war was that it was the wrong answer to the political situation. It was a very poorly thought out move.

So I would argue that, just as it is wrong to say that never going to war is a bad strategy for a leader, also, going to war every time talks break down is also an equally bad strategy. If you have to go to war, at the very least the war should be decisive, seen by the world as just and leave your country in a better state than it started. The choice of attacking Iraq achieved none of these goals and has only served to villanise the US in the eyes of the world.

Now, in the good old days it would have been far easier. You would just have stomped all over Iraq, and then either left the country to bleed to death or installed a colonial government with strict punishments for those who didn't toe the line.

Alas, now a days we have to be a bit more compassionate. So you are left in the ridiculous position of spending $10,000 to blow up a building, then spending another $50,000 to rebuild it a few weeks later. Meanwhile, your soldiers are being killed left right and centre, with no easily identifiable enemy. (Actually this is where I blame Blair most - Britain has plenty of experience fighting terrorists in Northern Ireland - they should have known the consequences of occupying a country with such militant religous extremists). So, this was a situation where deciding to go to war was a really poor choice.

Am I right in thinking that even Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf (a man I admire greatly) came out and said that he didn't think the second gulf war was a good move? Now he's hardly a pacifist.

So, being against the second gulf war does not neccessarily mean that someone is "peace at any cost", and it is dangerous to label people so simply as being either "pacifist" or "warmonger". I know very few smart people who fall into either category. I do know a number of "pacifists", but they tend to be social scientists who I struggle to muster any respect for, and I know (quite a few) "warmongers", but they are almost all red-neck Canadians with very little grasp of the political situation.

Now to qualify that: Just as being against the war does not make one a pacifist, being for the war does not make someone a "warmonger", I believe there are plenty of smart people who think that the war was a good move. That is there right. It just makes me laugh that people tend to get classified so easily because of one point of view.

I believe Shaggy-Hiker made much the same point, but he was far more elegant.

[Suzzi]

The problem comes when talking no longer is a viable option anymore. This is when the “peace crowd” fails to see military action is necessary and tend to put off dealing with a problem until it is too late. Winston Churchill considered himself a failure after WWII because as he said he failed to convince enough people about the growing problem of the Nazi’s inside of Germany. By the time Europe decided to deal with the Nazi problem it cost millions of lives and the destruction of most of the infrastructure of Europe.

Yeah - Lucky for the Brits that the US acted decisively and attacked Hitler as soon as he began to threaten his neighbours. Those silly Europeans should have attacked Hitler the moment he invaded Poland.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah - Lucky for the Brits that the US acted decisively and attacked Hitler as soon as he began to threaten his neighbours. Those silly Europeans should have attacked Hitler the moment he invaded Poland.

Good point.

Frankly, I expect the war would have gone about the same if Chamberlain hadn't negotiated with Hitler. France had the biggest and best equipt army on the continent when Germany crushed it. Britain was never more prepared....to get lifted out of Dunkirk, and, as it was, Germany went through France with the training tanks it had been using to try out the British strategy which came to be known as Blitzkrieg.