My post above was not in response to your post above it, rather the one further up questioning loyalty to the party line.........Yeah, things were getting out of hand around 62; thankfully for all of us they did not get completely screwy. Spent a large portion of my younger life next to a military base where there were large nummbers of nuclear weapons; we pray (although we were agnostic) every day that theere was never an accident ((I want my children to have two feet, not three). We also lived with the knowledge that if war ever did break out between the US and USSR we would have been evaported before the morons in DC who would have had a handd in starting it all. Remember the drills we had at school way back when? Get under your desk asap, don't look at the flash, blah blah blah. Our headmaster skipped them; he knew we didn't have a chance.
It is interesting with Cuban Missile dealie-o and Vietnam -- I think two major issues that spurred the whole anti-establishment movements of the 60s and 70s. I was born in 1978, and lived most of my childhood still under the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Since the 90's things have improved, I would say, except for the "dirty bomb" scenarios with terrorism. "Rogue states" (eg. Iran/ North Korea) are scary but their ICBM capabilities are limited unlike US and Russia during the cold war that had their fingers on the "mutual self destruction" button. India and Pakistan is concerning, but they'd blow up each other first rather than other countries. Talk to cricket fans of both countries and it will make sense.
But maybe we are less safe because everybody's got nukes and things could rapidly spiral out of hand if major terrorist attacks happen.
I don't think I've made convincing comments above so feel free to nitpick but actually more so the thing I want to say is that we are on the verge on the next 5-50 years to discover a radically new and fantastic source, or sources, of renewable, clean, powerful energy that can meet most of the world's energy demands well through to the end of the century, that will also power human exploration of the solar system.
There needs to be one more thing that needs to be "sorted out" before we gain access to this technology - we gotta somehow work out and stick to a plan on how to not blow ourselves up - this sort of energy tech would have potential to explode the world a hundred times over.
Good morning. We're all still here. Has anyone see "The Fog of War- Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara"? Very good documentary. Even more so after another Defense Secretary's demise... I had not known that McNamara went to Cuba years later and met Fidel Castro to discuss the crisis. Fidel admitted that he had the warheads and would have used them if the need called for it.
/link goes to complete documentary on google video
Good morning. We're all still here......... I had not known that McNamara went to Cuba years later and met Fidel Castro to discuss the crisis. Fidel admitted that he had the warheads and would have used them if the need called for it.....
Yes, I had heard that on some other documentary I watched several years back on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Maybe it was like a movie? Sounds perfect for Oliver Stone.... *memory hazy*.... it was very engaging docudrama stuff.
Basicaly yeah, it was like very very very friggin' close to launching the 'birds. It was like RISK, when you load up your pieces on the board in the region closest to your enemies once you conquer a huge slab of regions. The Soviets had a perfect launchpad at Cuba because of how close it was to the USA. Also though I think the USA had the range to nuke both Cuba and somewhere in the USSR.
come on lets face it, the US COULD NOT kick chinas ass, i mean they can't even beat a bunch of underfed, badly trained and poorly equipped Iraqi insurgents or Vietnamese rice farmers, the US has not won a major conflict since WW2 and that was the use of a atom bomb (Korea ended in a cease fire).
come on lets face it, the US COULD NOT kick chinas ass, i mean they can't even beat a bunch of underfed, badly trained and poorly equipped Iraqi insurgents or Vietnamese rice farmers, the US has not won a major conflict since WW2 and that was the use of a atom bomb (Korea ended in a cease fire).
come on lets face it, the US COULD NOT kick chinas ass, i mean they can't even beat a bunch of underfed, badly trained and poorly equipped Iraqi insurgents or Vietnamese rice farmers, the US has not won a major conflict since WW2 and that was the use of a atom bomb (Korea ended in a cease fire).
No, because this would be a straight-up fighter jets against fighter jets, tanks against tanks war, not some ongoing struggle against guerrilas.
No, because this would be a straight-up fighter jets against fighter jets, tanks against tanks war, not some ongoing struggle against guerrilas.
Wars have evolved, from armies lined up facing each other, to trench warfare, to todays modern warfare, gorilla warfare is just the next evolution of warfare and is probably the deadliest and most hard to win against of all, if not impossible to win against.
Comments
My post above was not in response to your post above it, rather the one further up questioning loyalty to the party line.........Yeah, things were getting out of hand around 62; thankfully for all of us they did not get completely screwy. Spent a large portion of my younger life next to a military base where there were large nummbers of nuclear weapons; we pray (although we were agnostic) every day that theere was never an accident ((I want my children to have two feet, not three). We also lived with the knowledge that if war ever did break out between the US and USSR we would have been evaported before the morons in DC who would have had a handd in starting it all. Remember the drills we had at school way back when? Get under your desk asap, don't look at the flash, blah blah blah. Our headmaster skipped them; he knew we didn't have a chance.
It is interesting with Cuban Missile dealie-o and Vietnam -- I think two major issues that spurred the whole anti-establishment movements of the 60s and 70s. I was born in 1978, and lived most of my childhood still under the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Since the 90's things have improved, I would say, except for the "dirty bomb" scenarios with terrorism. "Rogue states" (eg. Iran/ North Korea) are scary but their ICBM capabilities are limited unlike US and Russia during the cold war that had their fingers on the "mutual self destruction" button. India and Pakistan is concerning, but they'd blow up each other first rather than other countries. Talk to cricket fans of both countries and it will make sense.
But maybe we are less safe because everybody's got nukes and things could rapidly spiral out of hand if major terrorist attacks happen.
I don't think I've made convincing comments above so feel free to nitpick but actually more so the thing I want to say is that we are on the verge on the next 5-50 years to discover a radically new and fantastic source, or sources, of renewable, clean, powerful energy that can meet most of the world's energy demands well through to the end of the century, that will also power human exploration of the solar system.
There needs to be one more thing that needs to be "sorted out" before we gain access to this technology - we gotta somehow work out and stick to a plan on how to not blow ourselves up - this sort of energy tech would have potential to explode the world a hundred times over.
Okay, ending rambling..... now.
/link goes to complete documentary on google video
I challenge you to a Broccoli Steam-Off ...!!!
I am steaming them as we speak, didn't you get the memo?
Good morning. We're all still here......... I had not known that McNamara went to Cuba years later and met Fidel Castro to discuss the crisis. Fidel admitted that he had the warheads and would have used them if the need called for it.....
Yes, I had heard that on some other documentary I watched several years back on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Maybe it was like a movie? Sounds perfect for Oliver Stone.... *memory hazy*.... it was very engaging docudrama stuff.
Basicaly yeah, it was like very very very friggin' close to launching the 'birds. It was like RISK, when you load up your pieces on the board in the region closest to your enemies once you conquer a huge slab of regions. The Soviets had a perfect launchpad at Cuba because of how close it was to the USA. Also though I think the USA had the range to nuke both Cuba and somewhere in the USSR.
I am steaming them as we speak, didn't you get the memo?
My 6,000th post. You can have all the broccoli you want
I'm looking for a new signature though, I think this is the longest I've gone with one particular signature....
come on lets face it, the US COULD NOT kick chinas ass, i mean they can't even beat a bunch of underfed, badly trained and poorly equipped Iraqi insurgents or Vietnamese rice farmers, the US has not won a major conflict since WW2 and that was the use of a atom bomb (Korea ended in a cease fire).
It would be a battle that I don't want to see.
Moe
come on lets face it, the US COULD NOT kick chinas ass, i mean they can't even beat a bunch of underfed, badly trained and poorly equipped Iraqi insurgents or Vietnamese rice farmers, the US has not won a major conflict since WW2 and that was the use of a atom bomb (Korea ended in a cease fire).
No, because this would be a straight-up fighter jets against fighter jets, tanks against tanks war, not some ongoing struggle against guerrilas.
No, because this would be a straight-up fighter jets against fighter jets, tanks against tanks war, not some ongoing struggle against guerrilas.
Wars have evolved, from armies lined up facing each other, to trench warfare, to todays modern warfare, gorilla warfare is just the next evolution of warfare and is probably the deadliest and most hard to win against of all, if not impossible to win against.
http://www.intrepidearth.com/tour/06...hp?loc=default