Greatest I am

A nuclear WWIII will never happen. Dishonor will prevent it.

Recommended Posts

A nuclear WWIII will never happen. Dishonor will prevent it.

 

Wars are fought for honor and a nuclear WWII would have nothing but shame for the initiator of such a war.  

 

Our leaders know that there would be no honor in a nuclear war that would destroy our environment and insure that there is no real winner. Any leader or military war machine under his command that would initiate such a war would know dishonor like the world has never seen. The hate for Hitler and his regime and ideology is still alive and well in the world and that hate would be dwarfed by the hate that the initiator of a third WWIII would feel from the world.

 

The main reason for that hate and denial of honor would stem from the fact that any nuclear war would be fought against cities and their citizen instead of having an honorable battlefield war. No leader or military force will dishonor itself the way the U.S. did in Japan. Honor in war comes from facing an enemy man to man and our technology has now made that impossible. There is no honor in killing innocent non-combatant citizens in their beds from thousands of miles away. Ordinary people know this and so do their leaders and military.

 

Mutual assured destruction says that any nuclear war will be self-genocide. Some who do not know why wars are fought, and honor sought, may think some leaders are foolish enough to initiate a nuclear war but forget that no high ranking military man, especially of Asian descent, would ever dishonor himself and his family by initiating such a war. Such a man of honor would never initiate such a dishonorable war. A man of honor would know though that he would not be doing his duty if he did not retaliate. Reciprocity is fair play and is honorable and duty and honor would force a reciprocal reply.

 

Do you understand the psychological principles at play shown above and do you agree?

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

Disagreeing, sadly. You're implicitly assuming the ones in charge would be reasonable.

 

Money rules the world. And we're living in an age where big business considers bona fide psychopaths perfect CEOs. Sure, they probably won't openly demand a nuclear war, but they'll push the situation further toward that, and further, and further still, because just the fear of war leads to nations buying more and more stuff (mostly weapons, but not exclusively), and the term "risk" has no meaning for them.

 

If only you were right. I'm serious dude... if only.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Greatest I am

 

You analogy has some interesting aspects and, for normal human beings the honor thing may play out.

 

There are at least two more considerations:

    1. There might be a leader who honestly thinks they can "WIN" a nuclear exchange.

    2. For some leaders saving face is more important than honor.

 

As the above relates to the current scenario - Trump and Kim Jong-un very likely subscribe to both.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you don't understand crazy.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Drone strikes disprove much of what is being posited here.  The whole idea of fighting for honor has almost no meaning beyond some sort of catch phrase.  Sure, some might believe it but it really holds no water when you order those poor folks who, do believe, into battle.

 

     The word you're really looking for is "Glory" not "honor."  And people will do all sorts of crazy things for glory.  Including blowing up the entire world.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Thurisaz said:

Disagreeing, sadly. You're implicitly assuming the ones in charge would be reasonable.

 

Money rules the world. And we're living in an age where big business considers bona fide psychopaths perfect CEOs. Sure, they probably won't openly demand a nuclear war, but they'll push the situation further toward that, and further, and further still, because just the fear of war leads to nations buying more and more stuff (mostly weapons, but not exclusively), and the term "risk" has no meaning for them.

 

If only you were right. I'm serious dude... if only.

I am mostly ignoring our less honorable oligarch owners and their bought and paid for lackey politicians.

I place my trust and base my views on the military men and women who know what military honor looks like.

They know that their initiating a first nuclear strike against non-combatants and women and children would only bring shame and dishonor to them.

They want to wear their medals with pride, not shame and dishonor.

Regards

DL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a rather strange OP, Psychological geopolitical determinism?  A good watching of Dr. Strangelove is a steady reminder of the kind of ideas promoted by Game Theory, such as Jon von Neumann's strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  The satire of the film which is a dual metaphor for the historical madness of the designed system, which generated its own crises due to the competitive "races" which could give either side an edge up on deterrence or first strike capability.  The other half of metaphor to the film, addresses the similarities of men going to war with the primal sexual desire to penetrate a woman.  Jack D. Ripper, the American General serves as the quintessentially potent "man" who after performing the "physical act of love" felt a fear from the Communist fluoridation that threatened his "precious bodily fluids."  This sexually derived hysteria fueled by a Communist Conspiracy led him to use Plan R, which allowed lower level generals to launch a retaliatory strike if Washington was taken out.  A only slightly hyperbolic representation of some of the contingencies which were developed during the Cold War, but this inclusion of "fake news" with the conspiracies about the Communist fluoridation and corruption of all American goods and institutions led him to think the generals ought to take matters into their own hands from the politicians and make the decisive blow.  The whole story goes haywire when they find out that the Soviets had failed to announce the creation of a Doomsday Device, which would enshroud the planet in a thick cloud and kill all life.  

 

The reality today is that the "red button" is never further than 5 minutes away from an unhinged president with two nuclear proliferation crises looming.  Iran is particularly troubling, as their achievement of Nuclear weapons would likely spawn a race within the Middle East, especially with the increasing decline of the fossil fuel markets in the 21st Century, and rise of sectarianism, most notably the Shia and Sunni Muslim divide.  The problem of Israel in the Middle East could also prompt thermonuclear war in a future scenario, which would likely involve the outbreak of war between Russia and the West as well, as it will surely back Iran.  If Trump is but a taste of what populist protests can produce in the West, then we have a long way to slide down once the Chinese Credit bubble bursts and the ECB begins to slide and with it the United States.  

 

Honor is just nationalist lie we tell young men to die for exploitative and avoidable wars, which are spawned as crises of our over exuberance and greed.  That's what led to 1914, the Imperialist competitive system which led to the arms race and erratic mobilization system which served as the Doomsday machine for its era.  There may not be a chance to rebuild if the doomsday mechanism is mishandled in our current era, so it is best to gain wisdom from that which has already occurred.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MOHO said:

@Greatest I am

 

You analogy has some interesting aspects and, for normal human beings the honor thing may play out.

 

There are at least two more considerations:

    1. There might be a leader who honestly thinks they can "WIN" a nuclear exchange.

    2. For some leaders saving face is more important than honor.

 

As the above relates to the current scenario - Trump and Kim Jong-un very likely subscribe to both.

I hear you but leaders with militaries that will not dishonor themselves are just noise.

If push came to shove, I envisage either death or being ousted for either Trump or Kim Jong-un should they try to place the whole world in nuclear fall out danger.

M A D works and all the military systems in the world knows it and will not violate it.

They would know that even if they won, they would lose honor and gain disgrace worse that 100 Hitlers.

Regards

DL

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, florduh said:

Apparently you don't understand crazy.

And you do not understand military honor.

If a soldier, would you turn the key for a first nuclear strike knowing that M A D will kill all those you love?

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Drone strikes disprove much of what is being posited here.  The whole idea of fighting for honor has almost no meaning beyond some sort of catch phrase.  Sure, some might believe it but it really holds no water when you order those poor folks who, do believe, into battle.

 

     The word you're really looking for is "Glory" not "honor."  And people will do all sorts of crazy things for glory.  Including blowing up the entire world.

 

          mwc

 

Semantics and an idiotic conclusion.

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would also be good to discuss developments which will complicate these nuclear standoffs.  Hyper sonic missiles and bombers will be able to deliver warheads in a fraction of the time, and we are on the precipice currently of this technological revolution, China, Russia, and the United States.  There is also a hybrid war going on with Russia and most of its neighbors which serves as a prelude for what else we could see more broadly, and are already seeing.  Information warfare has already impacted the American electoral system, and continues its influence far more potently in the Baltic countries, and particularly in Ukraine where it is fighting a secret illegal war which it has veiled as some struggle for ethnic nationalists.  Cyberspace and the exposed infrastructure, particularly of our power grids can perhaps take out whole cities' productions without having to bomb them, causing long term and widespread economic damage.  The weapons which are most robust to these kinds of attacks, are also the ones with the most destructive power, our nuclear arsenal.  While this game of chicken has staved off war thus far, more dubious actors than John F Kennedy and Khrushchev are now controlling the "red button."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

This is a rather strange OP, Psychological geopolitical determinism?  A good watching of Dr. Strangelove is a steady reminder of the kind of ideas promoted by Game Theory, such as Jon von Neumann's strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  The satire of the film which is a dual metaphor for the historical madness of the designed system, which generated its own crises due to the competitive "races" which could give either side an edge up on deterrence or first strike capability.  The other half of metaphor to the film, addresses the similarities of men going to war with the primal sexual desire to penetrate a woman.  Jack D. Ripper, the American General serves as the quintessentially potent "man" who after performing the "physical act of love" felt a fear from the Communist fluoridation that threatened his "precious bodily fluids."  This sexually derived hysteria fueled by a Communist Conspiracy led him to use Plan R, which allowed lower level generals to launch a retaliatory strike if Washington was taken out.  A only slightly hyperbolic representation of some of the contingencies which were developed during the Cold War, but this inclusion of "fake news" with the conspiracies about the Communist fluoridation and corruption of all American goods and institutions led him to think the generals ought to take matters into their own hands from the politicians and make the decisive blow.  The whole story goes haywire when they find out that the Soviets had failed to announce the creation of a Doomsday Device, which would enshroud the planet in a thick cloud and kill all life.  

 

The reality today is that the "red button" is never further than 5 minutes away from an unhinged president with two nuclear proliferation crises looming.  Iran is particularly troubling, as their achievement of Nuclear weapons would likely spawn a race within the Middle East, especially with the increasing decline of the fossil fuel markets in the 21st Century, and rise of sectarianism, most notably the Shia and Sunni Muslim divide.  The problem of Israel in the Middle East could also prompt thermonuclear war in a future scenario, which would likely involve the outbreak of war between Russia and the West as well, as it will surely back Iran.  If Trump is but a taste of what populist protests can produce in the West, then we have a long way to slide down once the Chinese Credit bursts and the ECB begins to slide and with it the United States.  

 

Honor is just nationalist lie we tell young men to die for exploitative and avoidable wars, which are spawned as crises of our over exuberance and greed.  That's what led to 1914, the Imperialist competitive system which led to the arms race and erratic mobilization system which served as the Doomsday machine for its era.  There may not be a chance to rebuild if the doomsday mechanism is mishandled in our current era, so it is best to gain wisdom from that which has already occurred.  

Honor is not as you describe when a soldier who is ordered to do a first nuclear strike knows that if he turns that key, everyone he loves will die.

No one give the U.S. honor for killing non-combatants and women and children in Japan and those bombs were justified as war enders.

Anyone who uses them for war starters with face dishonor and will be reduced to a third or forth world nation, if the world survives.

No man of honor will do a first strike.

Regards

DL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old lie: "It is sweet and honorable, to die for the fatherland [one's country]"

 

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.” 

 Wilfred Owen, The War Poems

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Greatest I am said:

Honor is not as you describe when a soldier who is ordered to do a first nuclear strike knows that if he turns that key, everyone he loves will die.

No one give the U.S. honor for killing non-combatants and women and children in Japan and those bombs were justified as war enders.

Anyone who uses them for war starters with face dishonor and will be reduced to a third or forth world nation, if the world survives.

No man of honor will do a first strike.

Regards

DL

 

We already know from psychological research, that people don't process following orders from an authority in the same ways morally as they do personal decisions.  Studies showed that people would give what they thought were shocks of a lethal force to actors, if they were told the responsibility would be the teacher's, who was controlling the experiment.  The soldier who controls the Nuclear arsenal is also trained on the strategy of MAD, this scenario means that he MUST follow orders to launch in order for the threat of deterrence to be viable.  The control over the launch of the weapons lies not with single soldiers throughout the vast network of nuclear silos who would somehow mutiny at the order.  Wishful thinking at this most incredibly inane, sorry to put it so bluntly, but we're talking about a species extinction level event that has be avoided here.  

 

You're also unfamiliar with the US War plans historically, the first strike would be at the opponent's striking capabilities, and if any retaliation takes place, THEN ICBMs are launched at population centers.  Which would almost assuredly be the case, which is why the doctrine of MAD became gospel with the Pentagon.  One person in the United States controls if we go to thermonuclear war, not some honor loving grunt at the nuclear silo, but the President of the United States, Donald Trump.  Feeling safe today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

It would also be good to discuss developments which will complicate these nuclear standoffs.  Hyper sonic missiles and bombers will be able to deliver warheads in a fraction of the time, and we are on the precipice currently of this technological revolution, China, Russia, and the United States.  There is also a hybrid war going on with Russia and most of its neighbors which serves as a prelude for what else we could see more broadly, and are already seeing.  Information warfare has already impacted the American electoral system, and continues its influence far more potently in the Baltic countries, and particularly in Ukraine where it is fighting a secret illegal war which it has veiled as some struggle for ethnic nationalists.  Cyberspace and the exposed infrastructure, particularly of our power grids can perhaps take out whole cities' productions without having to bomb them, causing long term and widespread economic damage.  The weapons which are most robust to these kinds of attacks, are also the ones with the most destructive power, our nuclear arsenal.  While this game of chicken has staved off war thus far, more dubious actors than John F Kennedy and Khrushchev are now controlling the "red button."  

All good points.

Take out hydro, like someone speculated, and the world backs up 100 years in 3 days.

By the 5 day, we are all trying to cut each others throat.

Our technology has weakened us to full dependence on it. So much for living in free countries. We have slaved ourselves to our technology.

 

I agree that a crisis looms above us. That might be a good thing if it forces all combatants to the negotiating table. Nato, the Commonwealth, the E.U., Eastern block countries etc, will have to sit down soon as the planet basically revolts against us due to environmental change and forces us to either cooperate, or compete. 

 

I think we will cooperate and organizations, likely led by the U.N., will be given the teeth to bite any country that does not kowtow to what the world wants. We may not have a choice if we want to maintain our semblance of civilization.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

The old lie: "It is sweet and honorable, to die for the fatherland [one's country]"

 

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.” 

 Wilfred Owen, The War Poems

One of the must powerful anti war poems ever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Wishful thinking at this most incredibly inane, sorry to put it so bluntly, but we're talking about a species extinction level event that has be avoided here. 

True and those who turn the key will not take responsibility for  or be insane enough to bringing the extinction of the human race.

 

The fact that fools can bring us closer the way they are doing today will scare the F out of everyone and that is what will create change. We do not need an alien invasion as envisaged by Regan that helped bring down the wall to bring us together.

The insanity of the systems we have created will do just fine.

Nothing quite like fear to bring people closer together. Right?

Perhaps we should praise Trump and Kim Lung-un for showing us hoe stupid the rest of us are and get us off our collective rumps and move to a sane system of government.

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Greatest I am said:

All good points.

Take out hydro, like someone speculated, and the world backs up 100 years in 3 days.

By the 5 day, we are all trying to cut each others throat.

Our technology has weakened us to full dependence on it. So much for living in free countries. We have slaved ourselves to our technology.

 

I agree that a crisis looms above us. That might be a good thing if it forces all combatants to the negotiating table. Nato, the Commonwealth, the E.U., Eastern block countries etc, will have to sit down soon as the planet basically revolts against us due to environmental change and forces us to either cooperate, or compete. 

 

I think we will cooperate and organizations, likely led by the U.N., will be given the teeth to bite any country that does not kowtow to what the world wants. We may not have a choice if we want to maintain our semblance of civilization.

 

Regards

DL

This is all part of the leap mankind took with the Agricultural Revolution, which was a result of technology and cultural innovations that led to larger than tribal political and social organization, such as the Egyptians and Greeks.  History has been at the driving seat, while most normal folks worked the fields, and even the tides of history make most men of power passengers in the complexities that arise.  We are dependent on a Capitalist-Consumer economic system which must essentially continually consume itself while avoiding shocks and crashes with its over exuberance and extravagant wealth extraction.  It is one system in a long line of systems which exploit the weak at the behest of the strong, who make decisions behind closed doors in interests which in this last go around benefit mostly the oilman, banker and politician.  Technocrats thought they could create new digital platforms to replace social institutions of traditional society, but even traditional society was built upon BS myths which had detrimental impacts as well as being useful to the gullible and simple minded.  

 

The geopolitical vacuum of the fall of the Soviet Union was only partially left void, until a resurgent Russia moved the Baltic States and Eastern Block to want to integrate into the EU and Eurozone, which is a whole nother bag of complexity right there.  This is a natural outcome of Putin flexing his geopolitical muscles first in Georgia, then in the Ukraine with the secret war and annexation of Crimea as well as its strategic involvement in Syria.  We fundamentally have different political objectives from Putin, because he is a Kleptocrat who wants to undermine our democracy, so sadly further cooperation here is unlikely until they have a change in regime (which is unlikely for a long time).  

 

The UN is also going to increasingly be controlled by Chinese interests with the falling away of America, and the Chinese domination of foreign investment in emerging markets, such as Africa.  These international institutions also operate at a level of soft-anarchism, in that we can only produce sanctions or multilateral military action through the Security Council, of which Russia and China are vetoing members of.  Meanwhile the States Department, the primary arm of US Diplomacy dies a slow death while Rex Tillerson leaves tens of thousands American diplomats scratching their heads as he walls himself in with policy advisers in Washington.  Yet even this fool, Tillerson would be willing to call Trump a "moron" after he suggested we increase our Nuclear arsenal ten-fold in July.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

One of the must powerful anti war poems ever.

It is truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Greatest I am said:

True and those who turn the key will not take responsibility for  or be insane enough to bringing the extinction of the human race.

 

The fact that fools can bring us closer the way they are doing today will scare the F out of everyone and that is what will create change. We do not need an alien invasion as envisaged by Regan that helped bring down the wall to bring us together.

The insanity of the systems we have created will do just fine.

Nothing quite like fear to bring people closer together. Right?

Perhaps we should praise Trump and Kim Lung-un for showing us hoe stupid the rest of us are and get us off our collective rumps and move to a sane system of government.

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 

How bad does the crises have to be, in order to motivate non tribalistic people who care about humanity to band together to address our problems?  This is a riddle yet to be answered, men long for personal immortality and secretly dreams of the world's demise, who knows what madness would be spawned by the unraveling of so many myths and illusions we had about ourselves.  I certainly think we need optimists out there, who fight for change and for ideals which are unlikely to be achieved.  But most revolutionaries get hijacked by angry mobs, from Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

It is truth.

I don't know how anyone who has ever read about Passchendaele and the sheer amount of waste of human life from 1914-1918 can not become a pacifist. You know, I went through high school with that nationalistic myth making still a large part of my interpretation, and by the time I was done with my history degree I had no trouble stating I would oppose war in any shape or form. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TruthSeeker0 said:

I don't know how anyone who has ever read about Passchendaele and the sheer amount of waste of human life from 1914-1918 can not become a pacifist. You know, I went through high school with that nationalistic myth making still a large part of my interpretation, and by the time I was done with my history degree I had no trouble stating I would oppose war in any shape or form. 

 

I'm a former Boyscout Mormon, who was an army brat.  Was filled to the BRIM with nationalistic mythology, and how we were defenders of liberty and Capitalism all throughout the world.  My favorite movies were war movies, my favorite video games were war games, and considered joining the military when I got older.  Then like you, I got a decent historical education, particularly of the first World War, and I think anyone looking at Trump's behavior is just terrified by the parallels to Kaiser Wilhelm.  I think that violence will necessarily result unless there is a change in the global political system, otherwise the present military situation will result.  We have been stuck on this cycle of arms races and escalatory expansion since Napoleon, and no one can get us off. 

 

A better mythology, would be the Republic of Earth, one that actually has some reality to our fragile situation in the universe, and has any potential to address the problems of distribution, environmental catastrophe, and dismantling of the cycles of military brinksmanship that spin situations out of people's hands and make them into historical passengers.  The entire Imperial system, which involved the general partitioning of the world at various times in history, was built upon competitive systems internal to Europe that pressed them to extract all value and create as many new luxuries, and thus new necessities as best they could and this engine of Imperial competition, which we call Capitalism, is the world made in our distorted image.  Now that Humanism and Capitalism are having a divorce though, I fear that ethnocentric thinking will win out with xenophobic populists turning liberal democratic institutions into inept zombie versions of their former selves, in the name of Nepotism and Kleptocrats everywhere.  Will secularists descend into the comedic cynicism of nihilism, or will they realize that the fictions that we create do have the ability to make new and novel changes in the world.  The fictions we should put forward are those which are agreed upon by everyone involved, and involve the least amount of suffering possible, as suffering is the most real thing in the world.  I think we strongly need to reassess our current political illusions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greatest I am said:

Semantics and an idiotic conclusion.

Regards

DL

     My bad.  I misunderstood that part where I was supposed to simply agree with you.

 

     Yes, our leaders have too much honor (read: integrity) to not have a nuclear war.  Honor (read: integrity) is everything to our leaders.  Their honor (read: integrity) is evidenced in everything they do as our leaders.  We are safe as a result of their honor (read: integrity).

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honor left the military industrial complex during Vietnam, if not before. Recommend movie "Dr. Strangelove." Decisions are not left to honorable men anymore. Not even sane ones.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh....in case you haven't noticed, there have been nukes used recently.  They were artillery shells that are made of spent nuclear fuel are used to take out enemy tanks and they go through their armor like a hot knife through butter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now