P.K. Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Yes I'm sure some crippled servicemen fell out of their wheelchairs laughing at that one. How surprisingly astute of you. But then who could fail to be moved by the amazing stoicism as displayed by the two crippled soldiers portrayed in "Wounded" the other evening. If you failed to watch it then you really should to get a much better perspective what it means to be a plank. Once again the BBC shows why the British Army is considered one of the best around and how Aunty is the best broadcaster on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Try reading the Wounded topic in the Film and Television section here. Plank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Try reading the Wounded topic in the TV section herePlank. Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 The world is becoming more dangerous. If it were to happen, there are means of countering their threats without nuclear weapons, such as trade embargoes, blockades, and financial sanctions, which could be far more damaging than nuclear weapons, and of course conventional warfare. Sanctions, blockades etc have an incredibly poor history of being effective - and to muster a proper blockade, or to be able to deter with a thread of conventional warfare takes a huge cost in military equipment, troops under arms etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Very gracious of you to acknowledge your plankness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 "Gracious"?????? - I'm proud of it! You just don't get it, do you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 It just seems so pointless to have them.If one gets fired off at 'us' for instance, what's the point? Wouldn't the ground be a no go zone anyway due to the radiation? I just don't get war and never liked it. It really isn't credible that a nation state would launch nuclear weapons UNLESS we threatened their territorial integrity. a rogue state using them threateningly in a post-disarmament world, is quite unlikely. Exactly, the argument implies that the leaders will be irrational. Sanctions, blockades etc have an incredibly poor history of being effective - and to muster a proper blockade, or to be able to deter with a thread of conventional warfare takes a huge cost in military equipment, troops under arms etc. Definitely, but the problem is that nuclear weapons can't credibly deter a non-nuclear state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 Tell that to Cuba! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 The "president" of Iran has stated that he will "wipe Israel off the map". Unfortunately it's highly possible MAD doesn't bother these fruitcakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 You've got to be a bit careful - there are resonances to what Ahmadinejad said and Kruschev saying "we will bury you" - people took that as a threat of nuclear rubble, but my understanding was that its meaning was much less belicous that it seemed, closer to "Our form of society will outlast yours and so we will be at its funeral". Ahmadinejad has called for the abolition of Israel - he love's the ambiguity of that statement, and that strategic ambiguity is part and parcel of this battle of nerves with the west. Rog and his ilk insist the only way for Israel to be abolished is via nuclear war - but it isn't clear that is what Ahmajinejad is looking for. Borders have been redrawn before now and Ahmajinejad aspires for a day when the Muslim world can have as much disdain for borders as the colonial powers did when they played with maps of the world. I don't deny its dangerous, but the implication the man is mad is taking it a bit far. I very much think deterence both nuclear and conventional does influence strategic thinking - the fact Israel has the bomb undoubtedly plays a deterrent role on non-nuclear Iran for all LDV's protestations. Iran has been the play thing of the bigger powers in the past and doesn't wish to be again - and feels threatened by an encircling US. Its dangerous, but both sides are making references to shaking hands, so not totally irrecoverable at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 But that doesn't indicate whether he is rational or not. He will be interested in his own safety. These elites do not make boasts or threats with no care for what will happen to them. They aren't going to get nuclear weapons for the sake of blasting Israel off the face off the earth, it wouldn't make sense at all. I do think Iran's treatment over the past four decades (probably more) at the hands of western nations makes it quite understandable why Iran would want some guarantee that it won't be interfered with in future. You can't blame them and you can't criticise for building the weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 Apart from the fact that their actions have a role in creating the instability they are currently facing. If they abandoned the bomb (and stopped sponsoring Hezbollah, Hamas etc) they would find the threats they face reducing markedly - Libyia faced an existential threat from the West, and got out of it by changing its behaviour. If it went back to trying to build a bomb that threat would return. It does take two to tango. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 and stopped sponsoring Hezbollah, Hamas etc I had an envelope in the letterbox from the Salvation Army the other day to put some money in. Never had one from Homers or Hezbibble. Do they do sponsored walks or bra dashes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Apart from the fact that their actions have a role in creating the instability they are currently facing. If they abandoned the bomb (and stopped sponsoring Hezbollah, Hamas etc) they would find the threats they face reducing markedly - Libyia faced an existential threat from the West, and got out of it by changing its behaviour. If it went back to trying to build a bomb that threat would return. So are you advocating a response to Iran's ambitions and clients like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.