6. August 1945

Courier said:
It never turned "Hot" on a worldwide scalewhich which is why it's called the "Cold War". It did turn "Hot" however in several cases, it just never erupted into all out war.
Click to expand...

Why do you even discuss it when you answer the topic already to your self :P

The "Cold War" describes the situation as whole which includes the conflict through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to states deemed vulnerable, proxy wars, espionage, propaganda, conventional and nuclear arms races.

So when people refer to the Cold War as Hot War they from my understanding refer to ... Although the chief military forces never engaged in a major battle with each other, - only the bold part.
 
Yes but you said that it never turned hot which is false. It's called the "Cold War" because it never erupted into conflict at a large-scale, not because it never erupted into conflict at all.
 
lol, It's extremely unlikely that China will declare war on the US. Should China ever goes to war against the US, China will be the big loser financially. US can probably just promptly forget about 1 trillion dollars worth of debt that the Chinese owns. :lol:

Well, it is a sombre day in Japan, since the earthquake/tsunami and power plant problems are still fresh in their minds. According to my Japanese friends, the clean up in Fukushima is going well at least.
 
While it didn't stay cold, I wouldn't say it went 'hot' Got a little warm, most definitely, but not well and proper hot.

And, damnitboy, is this a one off or a just the start of a policy of ruining the shit out of crazy nations?
 
Starseeker said:
lol, It's extremely unlikely that China will declare war on the US. Should China ever goes to war against the US, China will be the big loser financially. US can probably just promptly forget about 1 trillion dollars worth of debt that the Chinese owns. :lol:
Click to expand...
Who knows what might happen in 50 or 100 years.

But I would not rule out completely the possibility of wars. Even between China and some of the other powers. It seems very unlikely from our point of view. But 50 years for example are a long time. And many things can happen.

Like the USA annexing Canada. The Chinese invading Alaska and ... yeah you know the rest.
 
lol, if you are going to go that route, then it's more likely for China to have a civil war before it goes to war against anybody else. People are only willing to tolerate CCP elites squeezing them dry for so long. As soon as the CCP is unable to deliver the economical benefits of their rule, some Chinese people might just take matter into their own hands like they've doing for thousands of years.
 
Mr Krepe said:
...smaller nations may lose rationale in their pursue of defeating their enemy. But nations such as USA, Russia, China, and NATO countries have more than enough rationale to realise nuclear weapons will nearly always result in a catastrophic problem...
Click to expand...

Heh, you seem to have an interesting vision of the "smaller nations". Just so you know, my country (Argentina) did develop nuclear weapons, although not super intercontinental missiles, during a pro-USA military dictatorship (1976-1983), but disarmed them with the return of democracy. The USA said we were still developing a nuclear submarine probably to use it against Brazil, but Brazil and Argentina signed a pact not to make these weapons.

A nuclear missile was found in 2009 in some Argentinean military installations but it was disarmed.

Meanwhile, the "rationale" nations develop crazy amounts of nuclear weapons "for self defense" and accuse each other for having the same kind of weapons.

Anyway. Crni Vuk, I liked your topic. Simple but certainly not dumb, it was a nice read.
 
We should just go ahead and nuke DB's backwards arms, they're more destructive than nuclear weapons anyway.
 
Hoxie said:
We should just go ahead and nuke DB's backwards arms, they're more destructive than nuclear weapons anyway.
Click to expand...

Then wouldn't they destroy the nukes that we launched at them? Maybe we could just use DB's arms to disarm the world of nuclear weapons.
 
Eternauta said:
Mr Krepe said:
...smaller nations may lose rationale in their pursue of defeating their enemy. But nations such as USA, Russia, China, and NATO countries have more than enough rationale to realise nuclear weapons will nearly always result in a catastrophic problem...
Click to expand...

Heh, you seem to have an interesting vision of the "smaller nations". Just so you know, my country (Argentina) did develop nuclear weapons, although not super intercontinental missiles, during a pro-USA military dictatorship (1976-1983), but disarmed them with the return of democracy. The USA said we were still developing a nuclear submarine probably to use it against Brazil, but Brazil and Argentina signed a pact not to make these weapons.

A nuclear missile was found in 2009 in some Argentinean military installations but it was disarmed.

Meanwhile, the "rationale" nations develop crazy amounts of nuclear weapons "for self defense" and accuse each other for having the same kind of weapons.

Anyway. Crni Vuk, I liked your topic. Simple but certainly not dumb, it was a nice read.
Click to expand...

Thats the point. You know I have some issue with nations like Brazil when it comes to that - but it does not count only for them.

I mean it is very easy to say that you don't want nukes when you don't need them. This is basically what Japan does. But what happens once if Japan is not under the nuclear umbrella of the USA anymore ? There is a serious discussion if that would require Japan to get its own nuclear weapons.

As said. When you think that you don't need it is very easy to give up on it. But Brazil and some of its neighbors have an increasing economy and many believe that South America will see here eventually more tensions in the future. And fact is that you can very easily change a civilian use of nuclear energy in to a military one.

I mean we have to see it that way. Why else would the USA and the rest of the world get a problem with nations like the Iran and their nuclear programm even though they say it is only for domestic use ? Because they have the experience with nuclear reactors and technology. And a domestic use is a rather rare situation - why else do most favour reactor designs which can be used for weapons as well ?
 
Eternauta said:
Mr Krepe said:
...smaller nations may lose rationale in their pursue of defeating their enemy. But nations such as USA, Russia, China, and NATO countries have more than enough rationale to realise nuclear weapons will nearly always result in a catastrophic problem...
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the "rationale" nations develop crazy amounts of nuclear weapons "for self defense" and accuse each other for having the same kind of weapons.
Click to expand...

Really, because a lot of the nations that comment seems to be aimed at are NPT members, and China is NFU(No first use). I don't recall there being an event where nations have accused each other of having possesion of nuclear weapons very recently, not any MEDCs as far as I know. If I am wrong forgive my ignorance.
 
I personally love the atomic explosion, the mushroom cloud is beautiful, especially in slow motion. The heat and plasma are amazing (a mini sun), what a way to go...just make sure you're right under the blast, otherwise things will get very tricky, very quickly.

nuclear-explosion.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top