So outdated websites are better for accuracy? :confused2Originally posted by Giancarlo
A newspaper? HAHAHA. Very funny. I don't believe whatever the newspaper says...
So outdated websites are better for accuracy? :confused2Originally posted by Giancarlo
A newspaper? HAHAHA. Very funny. I don't believe whatever the newspaper says...
Originally posted by Jan
So outdated websites are better for accuracy? :confused2
Pravda?Originally posted by Owen
GC. What do you base the idea that the newspapers are all communist as you say they are? They may be slightly liberal, but I haven't seen any paper embraces communism.
Originally posted by Owen
GC. What do you base the idea that the newspapers are all communist as you say they are? They may be slightly liberal, but I haven't seen any paper embraces communism. Supporting democrats is not communism.
Also, that latest article you gave us states that Pakistan has more than 30-35 warheads(you earlier gave an article that stated they had 10 warheads).
Do you know why India would have gone down to the reduced amount of 30 warheads while Pakistan would increase their load by 20(based upon the estimates).
I haven't noticed any treaties where India was supposed to reduce the amount of their arms, and even if they did, it would seem unlikely they complied based upon thier 1998 tests.
Also, why would India likely leave their warheads on a launching pad, which can take up to 20 hours as you say, when they could launch them from an aircraft which would require less time? Doesn't make much of sense.
However, I seriously doubt either country would launch their warheads based on the fact that they know if they used a nuke, the other country would counter back with a nuke(plus the wrath of all of the other nations who are part of nuclear warhead treaties).
A basic principle of war is to destroy as much as you can while sustaining as little of a loss as possible(unless a decisive victory is pretty much assured).
Doesn't make sense unless either country has somehow developed a missle defense system without any other countries discovering it(extremely unlikely), or if they have knowledge of the location of most of the warheads of their rival and are extremely confident they could take them out before a counter attack(and even then they have to worry about
I think worrying about a nuclear war is a case of worrying too much. The US and Russia were just as bitter of rivals during the cold war, with much larger arsenal of weapons, and nothing became of that.
Originally posted by meow
Pravda?
Originally posted by Giancarlo
I said earlier that Pakistan has between 10 - 30 warheads.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
I doubt it. The estimates are all over the graph... some say completely different things. I am just going with the Nuclear Statisticans and Scientists on this one. Not some liberal newspaper.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
The aircraft can easily be shot down by Pakistan's very well trained airforce so the planes carrying nukes could be shot down. Pakistan has one of the best trained and it could pull of similar to that or close to that of Israel in flying hours and sorties.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
I still have my concerns.
Nuclear warfare doesn't make sense then. It never has. The only time it worked was in WWII, because only one country had nukes.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
The US and Russia are now friends but I still have concerns about other countries including Israel (possessing hundreds of short-range nukes), India and Pakistan, China and North Korea. Maybe not the country launching but sabotage could occur in their silos and cause a grave international crisis.
Originally posted by Owen
No where did you say Pakistan had 30 warheads. The only estimate you ever gave was 10 warheads from that article.
Why would a liberal newspaper lie about number of nukes? Doesn't make much sense.
Yet, they can easily be disabled if launched from the ground, at least by what you imply.
Hence, that is the reason why we have not had a nuclear attack since WWII. The threat of nuclear retaliation has kept countries from launching a nuclear attack. Why would that suddenly change now?
Yes. I am still aware about the friendship now between the US and Russia. However, you use history to predict the future somewhat. Based upon the Cold War and the tensions, there were no nukes launched, so why should we be so worried that the other countries will launch nukes.
I am not say keep a cautious eye on it, but stating that the chances of a nuclear war is high creates panic, when infact, the chances are still slim. There are too many deterents to launch warheads, especially from developing countries with smaller arsenals.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Early in this thread I gave a general estimate.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
What the? Liberal newspapers lie all the time about everything.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Have I ever suggested that would change? A country is given nukes and another is too... would they launch... you may never know.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
No nukes were launched because you have people like Richard Nixon signing arms deals. You haven't seen that in this conflict.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
How can you say the chances are slim? You don't know what could happen or not. There is a fact you are ignoring here repeatably, there are no Nixon like arms treaties between the two countries... they share a border which is in dispute and have territory in dispute. The US and USSR had no territory disputes when it came to their homeland. Try again.
Originally posted by AXCess
U people know much of this stuff! The only thing I know is that I`m scared! For real! I`ve never
been in a war before, nor I have ever seen one! I mean I`m only 14, I don`t wanna die yet!
I`ve got so much to see and so much to learn! I never had sex before! Is it strange to be scared?
No, it certainly isn't. What's strange is to get exited by it.Originally posted by AXCess
U people know much of this stuff! The only thing I know is that I`m scared! For real! I`ve never
been in a war before, nor I have ever seen one! I mean I`m only 14, I don`t wanna die yet!
I`ve got so much to see and so much to learn! I never had sex before! Is it strange to be scared?
Originally posted by Owen
No you didn't. You did say 10, based upon an article, but nowhere do you say 30. Tell me where you said it, if you did?
That is enough evidence for me . Back that up with evidence from recently and reasons why they would lie about warhead arsenals. Making statements such as that does not prove it.
You don't know either. But you stated that is was extremely likely.
Why weren't their other nukes launched in between WWII and the signing of arms deals?
The US and Russia were bitter enemies on the opposite side of the spectrum.
They weren't exactly friends. India and Pakistan don't have that much more tensions.
Add to the fact that they would be obliterated by countries like the US, Russia, etc. with larger arsenals, that deter's them even more from launching such an attack than the US and Russia during the conflict.
Originally posted by meow
No, it certainly isn't. What's strange is to get exited by it.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
More lies.....
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Yes I did. I said it was 10-30 or so based on an ABC News Article. They gave the figure. I don't trust them that much because they are left-leaning.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
OH REALLY? I have provided two more recent links to disprove your entire statement. Making illogical statements with communist newspapers behind you is illogical.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
No I didn't. I said something needs to be done about this before it gets worse.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Because Germany was defeated and Japan only needed two blasted on their cities before they unconditionally surrendered.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Yes but Richard Nixon helped prevented a complete nuclear war taking place because of a treaty he signed with Brezhnev. In this conflict there is no such treaty.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Oh really? They are launching artillery and howitzer shells into each other's territory specifically in a hotly disputed region known as Kashmir that you seem to not know about.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Probably. But you never know.
Originally posted by Owen
You are contradicting yourself. You say you don't trust them, then claim you made that estimate? Which way is it gonna be GC?
Why is it illogical GC? CAn you prove or will you keep saying that without backing it up? If you have provided reason why they lie, show them to me. Remember though, you said estimation is tough to do, so you have to prove that they lie and that they didn't misestimate.
But why have there been none since then?
But there wasn't a treaty between WWII and the Treaty Nixon signed. Explain why there wasn't any nuclear attacks then?
I said much more. The US and USSR were sending threats back and forth and USSR was sending their nukes to Cuba. Not directly attacking, but it was rising tensions. Yet not a single nuke was fired. I am asking you to prove why the chances of a nuclear strike is high.
And that is why their won't be a nuclear attack. CAuse they don't know, but they figure they will. Fear of attack is what is needed as a deterent, not an actual attack.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
I have to look at many sources. Based on what I have seen... those two latest sources I posted, the fas.org one and the ABC new source I would say the general estimate is between there. I actually also think ABCNews is more center-right leaning... my own correction.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
I have provided two additional links that you have ignored. And quite basically those new agencies and newspapers are biased to the left. And I don't trust leftist sources.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
I am not sure.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
From Encarta on why Eisenhower wouldn't of launched nukes:
Because Eisenhower wanted peace, on a number of occasions he turned down recommendations by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he launch a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviets while the United States still had more atomic bombs. He called his defense policy the New Look. It relied on nuclear weapons to deter the Soviets, but he refused to spend even half as much as most politicians demanded for those weapons, and he was reluctant to spend money on rocket development.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
His proudest accomplishment as president was making and keeping the peace. What he did best was managing crises, many of which threatened to lead to nuclear war.
Kennedy also managed to maintain the peace on nuclear tensions until Nixon arrived to office.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Because India and Pakistan actively dispute a piece of territory and fire shells at each other. The US and USSR did not, well not at least directly. You are ignoring that fact. And I am getting tired of it.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Whatever. You seem to ignore the fact that these two countries are shooting at each other.
Originally posted by Owen
Fine GC, but you did say "Yes I did. I said it was 10-30 or so based on an ABC News Article. They gave the figure. I don't trust them that much because they are left-leaning. " You were saying you didn't trust ABC.
Where are they. I did not see any links. Repost them, cause I may have looked over them.
Which proves my point that nuclear weapons deter the opponent, in nuclear warfare and otherwise.
Yes, but that doens't explain the USSR, and all the other countries who have had nukes, and why they haven't used them.
Why did the USSR heed the US threats durign the Cuban Missle Crisis. Becasue the US could back them up with nuclear weapons.
No I am not ignoring that fact. I am stating that the tensions that much higher that would cause a nuclear war. Besides, the tensions between Pakistan and India did not happen just yesterday. They haven't used nukes yet.
Again I am not ignoring it. Read what I am writing.
Are you telling me that you are that much more of an expert than national and military leaders that you know it is illogical, but they don't GC?
You say you are a military expert, but you seem to dismiss the fact that most people will not kill someone knowing they will be killed as a result(there are a few exceptions such as suicide bombers, but most people would rather live).
That is the main reason wars don't break out everyday. The threat of retaliation. It doesn't stop them all, but it deters most conflicts.