Should Britain have nukes? (article)

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

mm..you do not create PEACE by nuking the hell out of a country.

[STEED]

Clever AL.

[bradclark1]

Always keep a nuke and a means of delivery handy. Just having them serves a purpose. Especially in the coming decade.
Silver birds from the east in 2012 anybody?

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference.

The end result is the same.

[melnibonian]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

The end result is the same.

Not really. In the first case you plant the seeds of future conflicts in the other you use the opportunity to work with the defeted nation towards a more secure future (for both). This is a trully big difference

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by melnibonian

Not really. In the first case you plant the seeds of future conflicts in the other you use the opportunity to work with the defeted nation towards a more secure future (for both). This is a trully big difference

I don't get it.

Do you envision Japan crafting future retaliation conflicts against the US?

And which country was it that nurtured Japan back to health after the Japanese were "forced" to make peace?

[melnibonian]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I don't get it.

Do you envision Japan crafting future retaliation conflicts against the US?

And which country was it that nurtured Japan back to health after the Japanese were "forced" to make peace?

Everything depends on respect. When the Second World War finished the USA followed a different model in the management of peace in comparison with the model France and Great Britain followed after the First World War. The whole idea was in helping the defeted nations to stand tall again and feel they are equals (well almost at least) with the victors. I was not talking about Japan in my previous messages. What I meant was that in today's world using nuclear weapons or even heavy handed tactics can lead to "messy" situations where military powerfull nations cannot inforce the peace they wish. Examples can be found in Iraq, Afghanistan and unfortunatelly Israel and the rest of the Arab States in the region. I'm sorry if I missled you with my previous statements.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by melnibonian

Everything depends on respect. When the Second World War finished the USA followed a different model in the management of peace in comparison with the model France and Great Britain followed after the First World War. The whole idea was in helping the defeted nations to stand tall again and feel they are equals (well almost at least) with the victors. I was not talking about Japan in my previous messages. What I meant was that in today's world using nuclear weapons or even heavy handed tactics can lead to "messy" situations where military powerfull nations cannot inforce the peace they wish. Examples can be found in Iraq, Afghanistan and unfortunatelly Israel and the rest of the Arab States in the region. I'm sorry if I missled you with my previous statements.

How does any of this rebut the point that nukes were used and did create peace, which is what we were discussing?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference.

Why don't you tell us what the relevance of "created" versus "forced" was vis a vis WWII.

[melnibonian]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference.

Very Well Said