+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 19 of 30 FirstFirst ... 915161718192021222329 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 299

Thread: US tanks arrive in Germany to help Nato defences

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes View Post
    Islamic fundamentalist fighters or "terrorists" connected to a state actor could gain control of a bomb. If I were king of the world I'd have a magnifying glass over Pakistan 24/7.
    That wouldn't start a world war. The world would ban together and destroy Pakistan (in your example). It would unite the world against one enemy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes View Post
    Islamic fundamentalist fighters or "terrorists" connected to a state actor could gain control of a bomb. If I were king of the world I'd have a magnifying glass over Pakistan 24/7.
    Not to mention, the world would know if terrorists got their hands on a nuclear weapon. Also, they'd have to know how to use it. That would give neighbors plenty of time to take care of it. In this case, many world powers would just start bombing Pakistan and that would be that.
    Last edited by ArmySoldier; Jan 11 2017 at 09:40 AM.
    Pick up your rope and follow me, Air Assault infantry.
    "I'm too drunk to taste this chicken" -COL Sanders


    Courage is not being fearless. It's doing the feared. REAPER 1/50

    Tom Brady!!! Drive for 5!!!

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes View Post
    Again, war in the 21st century is fought via proxy. "Terrorists" are usually connect to a state actor. Not these "lone wolf' copycat guys but large organized attacks are basically intelligence operations. You think Al Qaeda isn't connected to a nation state? You think ISIS isn't connected to a nation state?
    Lol that's not new. That's been around for decades. It's a 100% different type of fight. A world war is so different than what you're claiming.

    Sure ALQ and ISIS have sponsors, but an entire nation will not go to war over them. We're not at war with the nation of Afghanistan for example. Just some people in it. Afghanistan has not declared a war on the US.

    You have a vast conspiracy with no substance.
    Pick up your rope and follow me, Air Assault infantry.
    "I'm too drunk to taste this chicken" -COL Sanders


    Courage is not being fearless. It's doing the feared. REAPER 1/50

    Tom Brady!!! Drive for 5!!!

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Swedish Guy View Post
    indeed, nukes give you one option: annihilate everyone. Is that an appropriate response to a minor provocation? No. What does this mean then? That with only nukes at your disposal, you are unable to respond to minor provocations with anything less than total annihilation of everyone. This means, you are unable to respond, because you are not an idiot who would kill everyone over a minor provocation. This is why you need conventional strength, so you have more options. options appropriate for smaller things, which do not end in mutual destruction. otherwise.. things get very dangerous very quickly. this is the reason nuclear armed countries still have conventional militaries. No, nukes are not enough. just think about it...

    people who reason like you should never be in command of nukes, or any military for that matter... yes, if someone invades your ally, you respond with nukes, which leads to mutual destruction. This means that no one will invade your allies, so you will never need to use nukes. It is funny: by telling everyone you are prepared to use nukes, you will assure they will never be used. On the contrary, by saying things like you do, you are inviting people to provoke you, since they know you will never use nukes anyways, so they're no deterrance. People who reason like you, are people who can be bullied into submission.
    I don't think you have a clue what I am debating about.
    I don't think it would be wise to pull our troop out of Europe.

    I was asking ArmySoldier questions, because he want to remove them because we have nukes.
    United We Stand, Divided We Fall. D's and R's are united and the people are divided.
    WE THE PEOPLE, NOT We The Corporations, or We the Government. Hold our elected officials to this.


    hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,"

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dairyair View Post
    I don't think you have a clue what I am debating about.
    I don't think it would be wise to pull our troop out of Europe.

    I was asking ArmySoldier questions, because he want to remove them because we have nukes.
    i see. i thought your position was to withdraw and not use nukes even if attacked. a misunderstanding, nevermind.

  5. Likes dairyair liked this post
  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySoldier View Post
    Lol that's not new. That's been around for decades. It's a 100% different type of fight. A world war is so different than what you're claiming.

    Sure ALQ and ISIS have sponsors, but an entire nation will not go to war over them. We're not at war with the nation of Afghanistan for example. Just some people in it. Afghanistan has not declared a war on the US.

    You have a vast conspiracy with no substance.
    The nature of war itself has changed, yes it began in the post WW2 arena during the Cold War. Nation states use proxy forces in lieu of direct conflict. We're in a proxy war with Russia and Iran as we speak. The entire point is that Islamic fundamentalists, backed by state actors, could very well get a hold of nuclear weapons. It's not a conspiracy theory it's the reality of 21st century war. Pakistan is perhaps the biggest threat. They could give nukes to Saudi Arabia or directly to a proxy force. They already helped fund 9/11. Not a conspiracy theory.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sa.september11


    War changes over time. At one point soldiers would stand in line on a battlefield waiting to be shot. Then guerilla tactics were introduced in the Americas and battlefield tactics changed. Over time war has evolved to include proxy forces and deception- intel agencies constantly facilitating attacks which can't be directly linked to a nation state. Proxy war is the new face of war in the 21st century. Subversion, destabilization etc.

    The last ten years we've been arming, training and funding Islamic extremists in the region. It's nothing new but the scope has widened. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and Iran have also been using Sunni/Shia "non-state actors" as proxy forces. Russia and China use proxy forces. The threat of nuclear warfare via proxy is very real. Asymmetric warfare via smaller nation states is also a sort of guerrilla warfare including a wide range of tactics. If a smaller nations can't beat a larger nation they'll use proxy forces. Actual war between nation states with soldiers fighting on a defined battlefield is mostly a thing of the past.

    The new face of war is multi-sided but mostly includes subversion and the use of proxy forces. Even when we attack a nation state such as Libya most of the fighting is done through proxy forces and subversion.


    To the point- nation states that can provide nukes to Islamic fundamentalists are a real threat. Right now Pakistan is probably the biggest threat in the ME. They have too many people in their government linked to Islamic proxy forces. Same with Saudi Arabia. Iran would be next on the list. This is a major reason we don't want nuclear capabilities to spread throughout the Middle East. These weapons could very well fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists or proxy forces. If that happens we're screwed. It's a worse case scenario.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes View Post
    The nature of war itself has changed, yes it began in the post WW2 arena during the Cold War. Nation states use proxy forces in lieu of direct conflict. We're in a proxy war with Russia and Iran as we speak. The entire point is that Islamic fundamentalists, backed by state actors, could very well get a hold of nuclear weapons. It's not a conspiracy theory it's the reality of 21st century war. Pakistan is perhaps the biggest threat. They could give nukes to Saudi Arabia or directly to a proxy force. They already helped fund 9/11. Not a conspiracy theory.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sa.september11


    War changes over time. At one point soldiers would stand in line on a battlefield waiting to be shot. Then guerilla tactics were introduced in the Americas and battlefield tactics changed. Over time war has evolved to include proxy forces and deception- intel agencies constantly facilitating attacks which can't be directly linked to a nation state. Proxy war is the new face of war in the 21st century. Subversion, destabilization etc.

    The last ten years we've been arming, training and funding Islamic extremists in the region. It's nothing new but the scope has widened. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and Iran have also been using Sunni/Shia "non-state actors" as proxy forces. Russia and China use proxy forces. The threat of nuclear warfare via proxy is very real. Asymmetric warfare via smaller nation states is also a sort of guerrilla warfare including a wide range of tactics. If a smaller nations can't beat a larger nation they'll use proxy forces. Actual war between nation states with soldiers fighting on a defined battlefield is mostly a thing of the past.

    The new face of war is multi-sided but mostly includes subversion and the use of proxy forces. Even when we attack a nation state such as Libya most of the fighting is done through proxy forces and subversion.


    To the point- nation states that can provide nukes to Islamic fundamentalists are a real threat. Right now Pakistan is probably the biggest threat in the ME. They have too many people in their government linked to Islamic proxy forces. Same with Saudi Arabia. Iran would be next on the list. This is a major reason we don't want nuclear capabilities to spread throughout the Middle East. These weapons could very well fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists or proxy forces. If that happens we're screwed. It's a worse case scenario.
    I can tell you first hand that there are two types of wars.

    Government contracting itself contradicts this "change of war". It's not that "war has changed" it's that there are different types of war. World wars where nations battle other nations in coalitions, then you have pockets of extremist terrorism. Pakistan does have it's security threats, but we would certainly level them before they did anything stupid. Geospatial imagery is for that very purpose.
    Pick up your rope and follow me, Air Assault infantry.
    "I'm too drunk to taste this chicken" -COL Sanders


    Courage is not being fearless. It's doing the feared. REAPER 1/50

    Tom Brady!!! Drive for 5!!!

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySoldier View Post
    I can tell you first hand that there are two types of wars.

    Government contracting itself contradicts this "change of war". It's not that "war has changed" it's that there are different types of war. World wars where nations battle other nations in coalitions, then you have pockets of extremist terrorism. Pakistan does have it's security threats, but we would certainly level them before they did anything stupid. Geospatial imagery is for that very purpose.
    They've already done something stupid.


    Anyhow, my point stands. Islamic fundamentalists linked to nation states are a real nuclear threat. Our military plans for this exact scenario. It's a scenario our foreign policy is actually helping to create when we destabilize more secular Arab nations. When nations like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen etc turn further and further towards Islamic fundamentalism our world becomes a more dangerous place.

    Advanced weapons of warfare in the hands of religious fanatics is perhaps humanities number one threat in the 21st century. Especially when these fanatics are linked to nation states. (Which is usually the case.)

    A world war is already bubbling under the surface with Russia, Iran and China forming a sort of axis. We've been using Sunni proxy forces and fascists to fight Iran and Russia. Islamic fundamentalism is a wildcard, a dangerous wildcard. That sort of fanatical ideology nullifies mutually assured destruction. If these people get their hands on nukes they will use them.
    Last edited by Hermes; Jan 11 2017 at 11:44 AM.

  9. Likes JakeJ liked this post
  10. Default

    Obama has 9 days left to try to antagonize Russia on behalf of the neocons, war mongers and military industrial complex. Fortunately, the Democratic Party of War lost the election.

    Putin is not taking the bait. Rather, just waiting for the Obama presidency and all his minions to expire.
    Last edited by JakeJ; Jan 11 2017 at 11:45 AM.


    The non-violent revolution of the ordinary American has prevailed. Long live the USA!


  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySoldier View Post
    I don't think Russia's going to try and takeover Europe like the British are so afraid of.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yep the threat of nukes ending the world is the deterrent itself
    What? We have no reason to fear Russia whatsoever. Where on Earth did you get that idea? Remember, it wasn't Britain who instigated the only crisis in history which could have led to global thermonuclear confrontation. That was America in 1962.

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snakestretcher View Post
    What? We have no reason to fear Russia whatsoever. Where on Earth did you get that idea? Remember, it wasn't Britain who instigated the only crisis in history which could have led to global thermonuclear confrontation. That was America in 1962.
    Then why are the brits beginning us to keep up the defense shield?
    Pick up your rope and follow me, Air Assault infantry.
    "I'm too drunk to taste this chicken" -COL Sanders


    Courage is not being fearless. It's doing the feared. REAPER 1/50

    Tom Brady!!! Drive for 5!!!

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 19 of 30 FirstFirst ... 915161718192021222329 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Germany, the one to help them all?
    By Nookz in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jan 15 2017, 03:15 AM
  2. Germany opposes Ukrainian NATO membership
    By Pronin24 in forum Latest US & World News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Dec 02 2014, 12:01 PM
  3. how the warm winter helps germany to crush russia
    By MarkusS in forum Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Mar 04 2014, 09:29 PM
  4. new anti tank weapons now arriving to Militants in South Syria
    By trucker in forum Latest US & World News
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: Aug 29 2013, 12:19 PM
  5. Germany plans tank sales to Saudi Arabia
    By Mad Conservative in forum Latest US & World News
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: Sep 15 2011, 05:30 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks