the US fleet had been anihalated, so the americans joined the allies out of a mutual need, none of this sorting out "Europe's problems".
Really, so we joined the allies after being attacked by Japan and devoted the bulk of our resources to Europe because we needed more ships? You do realize that our primary focus from day 1 was Germany even though they didn't directly attack us, right? You do realize that the weight of the naval fighting in the Pacific was carried out by the United States Navy (with contributions from New Zealand and Australia) and that the British didn't get involved until 1944/1945, right?
Furthermore, our fleet hadn't been 'annihilated'. The Japanese destroyed two battleships (the Arizona and the Oklahoma) and rendered several others inoperable until they were eventually repaired. The fleet that was 'annihilated' went on to win the Battle of Midway with no outside support six months later. If you bothered to do anything more than Google things that support your preconceived notions you might have already known this.
, The reason we didn't strike earlier was because there was a policy of ass sitting [wikipedia.org] to keep the commies weak
You have no idea what you are talking about. We were already fighting the Germans months before Pearl Harbor using the only arm of the US armed forces that was ready for war in 1941. Google the "Ruben James" sometime, since Wikipedia and/or Google seems to be the source of all of your knowledge. Given the sorry state of the American armed forces prior to 1943 (Portugal had a larger army than we did) there wasn't much else we could have done, notwithstanding the isolationist sentiment of the American people.
Don't let historical facts distract you from your preconceived notions about my country though.
You have no idea what you are talking about. With a T-1 you aren't paying all that money for dedicated bandwidth. The bandwidth (i.e: port) charges on my T-1 lines has never been more than a quarter of the total charge and is usually less than that. The bulk of the expense with a T-1 goes to the 'loop' charge, i.e: the money you are paying the local telco to lease two (or more with certain implementations) pairs on their plant. There's a reason why the old nomenclature referred to T-1s as "leased lines" because that's exactly what it is and the reason why it's so expensive. It has little to do with bandwidth.
A cable provider could deliver dedicated bandwidth to you for a lot less than a T-1 line costs -- they just have to pay attention to their contention ratios. The idea of a bandwidth crunch is overblown with existing technology -- to say nothing of future technologies such as DOCSIS 3.0 or fiber to the home.
I'll do something I rarely do -- I'll admit that I was wrong;) You actually have a valid point that not all liberals are in favor of gun-control -- I was kind of stereotyping, particularly with the "she might get hurt" remark. That does seem to be a stereotypical leftist response though. I still remain skeptical about the Democrats and gun control. There are a fair number of Democrats that don't believe in it (Tester, Webb, Gillibrand) but the party as a whole seems hell bent on bringing it back. The outage over Gillibrand's selection among the downstate democrats here in New York really irked me too.
We'll see what happens when the assault weapons ban v2.0 comes up. Will the pro 2nd amendment Democratic Senators vote to sustain a filibuster on the subject? Time will tell I suppose. I think they are signing their political death warrants if they don't. Bill Clinton blamed the original assault weapons ban for the Republican landslide in 1994 -- and all those rural districts that they won this time around seem likely to turn bright red if they try it again.
Even before he took the mantel he reversed his commitment against telco immunity and gave immunity. [nytimes.com]
That's the moment that he lost my vote and my support. I actually took a week off work and spent it out in Ohio campaigning for him against Hillary. Boy, did I feel like a dumbass afterwards.
I'd donated almost $500 to his campaign too. After the FISA betrayal I wrote them a letter and asked for it all back. They actually gave it to me too. I had a scanned copy of that check as my wallpaper for several months afterwards to remind me of the folly of believing anything that a politician says. I donated every penny of my returned donation to the EFF -- figured they needed it more than he did.
Your absolutely right to be on that soapbox. I call them 'negligent discharges' because that's what they usually are. Dropping a gun and having it go off (is this even possible with modern firearms?) would be an 'accident', but leaving one in the chamber and/or shooting something you didn't intend to seems more like negligence to me.
The reason I want the snap caps (in addition to extra protection for the firing pin) is to establish a procedure that reduces the likelihood of something like this happening. You can't ever be too safe can you? Plus they come in handy for demonstrating flinches -- load one up in the magazine after a few real rounds and don't tell the shooter that it's there -- then see if he/she flinches when they pull the trigger:)
When you start reloading, keep a logbook.
I'm actually going to try and keep a logbook for everything. How many rounds I fired on this visit to the range, which kind of ammo, how I did, etc, etc. As a geek I'm somewhat obsessed with data collection anyway, so this way I can combine two hobbies, help hone my shooting skills and keep track of how many rounds I've put through my guns.
I'm 'old school' enough that I prefer single action pistols and revolvers
That's another reason I like the 1911. That nice single action trigger pull. You don't have to worry about adjusting your shooting style for the first shot. I'll confess that I kind of got roped in by the mystique of Browning's creation but I actually shoot it better than all the other handguns I've tried so I don't feel too bad about buying one:)
I don't have to use my email for work, so I might not check my inbox more than two or three times a week
I'll shoot you an e-mail later. I can't access it from work, hence why I keep responding on/.
P.S. You wouldn't happen to be near Stillwater, Oklahoma?
Naw, Upstate New York here. I picked a great state to live in and get into the shooting sports, didn't I? I suppose it could be worse, I could be in California or Illinois. 90% of my shooting up to this point has actually been in Pennsylvania -- I live pretty close to the border and they actually have state sponsored gun ranges and liberal laws down there. I have a relative in PA who has showed me the ropes and helped me in my handgun selection process.
Here in NYS you can't even legally hold a handgun without a permit. The only saving grace is that I reside upstate and most of the counties (including mine) are pro 2nd amendment so I'll actually be able to get one. They don't regulate long guns either, whereas in NYC you can't even buy a.22 rifle without a permit.
Where were you 2nd amendment warriors during the Bush years when FEMA did a gun grab in New Orleans after they botched the relief effort after Katrina?
My understanding is that didn't originate with FEMA, it originated with Mayor Nagin. Anyway, the NRA was all over it and legislation was eventually passed on a Federal level to prohibit Federal resources from being used to seize lawfully possessed firearms. I'm pretty sure the state of Louisiana passed similiar legislation although you'd have to check with someone who follows their politics to get specifics.
the Constitution I'm reading is pretty clear that, with respect to firearms, they are to be unrestricted _explicitly_ within the context of a _well regulated_ militia.
Is that a justification clause or a prefatory clause? SCOTUS seems to think it's a prefatory clause. Furthermore, the latter part of the amendment says: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
How this has come to mean "anybody can have any kind of weapon anywhere at any time and do anything with it they choose" has always been perplexing to me.
It's never meant "do anything with it you choose". The laws against assault/murder/menacing/etc don't magically cease to apply merely because you carry a gun. The 2nd amendment isn't a license to commit acts that you would otherwise be prohibited from committing if you were unarmed. To claim otherwise is to sow FUD to further your argument and I would hope that you are better than that.
As far as "any kind of weapon" goes, the reason that the NRA and most sportsman are opposed to gun control aimed at specific types of guns (so-called "assault weapons") is because that gun control is typically written by people that don't understand firearms and the threats contained therein are typically manufactured. According to most crime statistics "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime (1% of homicides before the original ban took affect), so why do we need to regulate them?
Having been robbed myself, I can say I'm glad that I didn't have a firearm available to me at the time
What if he had opted to try and kill you instead of leaving you alive as a witness? Would you still be happy that you didn't have a firearm available?
but even putting that aside and assuming that shooting robbers is a desirable outcome
Shooting somebody is never a desirable outcome. It's simply more desirable than being murdered yourself. I would never shoot anybody over property -- but if I thought my life was in danger then I'd shoot them as many times as it took to remove that danger. Most gun owners would feel the same way. Talk to somebody in law enforcement or the military who has had to take a life to defend themselves -- it's a horrible thing to have to do and you have to live with it forever. Few people walk around with guns hoping they get a chance to shoot someone.
I've never seen anything to convince me that a proliferation of firearms won't create more violent altercations than it prevents.
Go read through this document when you get a chance and see if it changes your mind. Here's a few of the penitent facts, although you should consider reading all of it when you have the time:
1) 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
2) 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are âoehot burglariesâ which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a âoehot burglaryâ rate of only 13%.
3) 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
4) Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.
Because there are other factors at play such as population density.
So what your saying is that the availability of guns has little to do with violence and there are other factors at play? Thank you for agreeing with me. <stephen colbert>I accept your apology</stephen colbert>
New York is way more dense and it has strict gun control laws AND the crime rate is not nearly as high as it is in the Baltimore area, not by total volume OR per capita.
The big difference I can think of between NYC and Baltimore is that poverty is much more rampant in Baltimore. It would seem to me that the big city mayors should be doing something about this instead of trying to infringe on a constitutionally protected right, wouldn't you agree?
They don't want you sniffing the IP addresses of every other person watching videos. There's probably some privacy law about that.
If there is such a law I'd be curious to read it. It would be utterly unenforceable in any case and I think you lose your right to privacy when you start relying on a p2p system to provide you with content.
Most modern centerfire firearms can be safely dry fired, (so they say), but I like the extra insurance.
Snap caps are also additional insurance against negligent discharges. I figure that if I make chambering a snap cap part of my dry fire routine then that's extra insurance against doing something boneheaded like leaving a round in the chamber. I'd like to say that I'd never be this stupid but better safe than sorry as they say.
By far, the overwhelming majority of them really enjoy it if they are introduced to shooting correctly! (and don't be surprised if she gets to a skill level that allows her to outshoot you!!)
I could see my gf getting into it eventually. First I have to convince her that the gun isn't going to let itself out of the safe, load itself and then kill us in our sleep. Actually she's not that bad, she just hasn't ever been around guns. My family had them growing up so I'm more comfortable around them. I'll probably try and talk her into giving it a try when the weather gets nicer and I have a decent.22 for her to shoot.
I want to heartily thank you for one of my more enjoyable conversations on/.!
Yeah, it's been fun. Thanks for giving me another excuse not to do anything productive;) I'm around fairly often so I'll keep an eye out for you and will check this thread again later tonight:)
Hmm, maybe I should think about making a long gun my next purchase then. The 10/22 looks pretty good and actually within my price range. Still can't decide on whether I want the conversion kit or a.22 pistol for cheaper handgun plinking. Guess I'll make that decision after I'm done with the break-in period on my.45:)
Your striving for muscle memory and consistency...that takes a lot of shooting.
I've also debated picking up some snap caps and dry firing for this same purpose. Might make it more affordable and annoy the girlfriend less if I'm not spending every weekend daylight hour at the range;)
(hell you only joined WWII because you needed a fleet)
Huh????
So pretending that if the UK/France where well armed WWII would have been prevented quickly by an early strike is ridiculous.
Then what would have happened if the UK/France had actually waged war when Poland was invaded instead of sitting on their asses while she was raped and conquered?
Does anyone actually believe that click-through licenses are valid?
Who gives a shit if it's valid? Is the no-monitoring part enforceable? They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets? They gonna push that DRM out to my gateway to make sure I'm not capturing them there?
This is what happens when you let the lawyers draft the EULA without even consulting with the techies.....
Noticed how much upload bandwidth was being used and fired up Wireshark to figure out what was going on. Hang on a sec, there's a knock at the doo$*)&!&*()@*!)(*)(NO CARRIER
Terrorism had already 'emerged' it just wasn't called terrorism.
Germany was economically crippled and, worse, humiliated after WW1. A swift retaliation after Hitler decided to occupy some of the countries, wiping him off the map and forcing Germany to surrender yet again would not have solved this problem.
No, the only thing that would have solved that problem would have been a little bit of forward thinking on the part of the French. That notwithstanding though a short war every generations would not have totaled up to the body count seen in WW2.
The solution was only found after both sides found that it's better for peace to accept the mutual right to exist.
Boy, your the sunny optimist. I think the solution was only found after the Germans were utterly and totally defeated and nuclear weapons made total war too horrible to contemplate. There's also the matter of the Berlin Airlift and the fact that we staked everything (including our own cities after the advent of the ICBM) on defending the German people (in our zone anyway) from Russian revenge. Revenge that was (IMHO) completely justified after what the Germans did to the Soviet Union.
Your imagined body count in that scenario is low, over a billion would die
I guess that depends on what's being targeted. As it stands now the Chinese don't have a lot of assets that can reach CONUS -- so why we would go after cities when we could take out those assets and remove the threat to our country? Counterforce as opposed to countervalue.
If they hit our cities first I would imagine that we would respond in kind -- but they have to realize this and are hopefully more rational than that.
Slashdot Mirror
the US fleet had been anihalated, so the americans joined the allies out of a mutual need, none of this sorting out "Europe's problems".
Really, so we joined the allies after being attacked by Japan and devoted the bulk of our resources to Europe because we needed more ships? You do realize that our primary focus from day 1 was Germany even though they didn't directly attack us, right? You do realize that the weight of the naval fighting in the Pacific was carried out by the United States Navy (with contributions from New Zealand and Australia) and that the British didn't get involved until 1944/1945, right?
Furthermore, our fleet hadn't been 'annihilated'. The Japanese destroyed two battleships (the Arizona and the Oklahoma) and rendered several others inoperable until they were eventually repaired. The fleet that was 'annihilated' went on to win the Battle of Midway with no outside support six months later. If you bothered to do anything more than Google things that support your preconceived notions you might have already known this.
, The reason we didn't strike earlier was because there was a policy of ass sitting [wikipedia.org] to keep the commies weak
You have no idea what you are talking about. We were already fighting the Germans months before Pearl Harbor using the only arm of the US armed forces that was ready for war in 1941. Google the "Ruben James" sometime, since Wikipedia and/or Google seems to be the source of all of your knowledge. Given the sorry state of the American armed forces prior to 1943 (Portugal had a larger army than we did) there wasn't much else we could have done, notwithstanding the isolationist sentiment of the American people.
Don't let historical facts distract you from your preconceived notions about my country though.
You have no idea what you are talking about. With a T-1 you aren't paying all that money for dedicated bandwidth. The bandwidth (i.e: port) charges on my T-1 lines has never been more than a quarter of the total charge and is usually less than that. The bulk of the expense with a T-1 goes to the 'loop' charge, i.e: the money you are paying the local telco to lease two (or more with certain implementations) pairs on their plant. There's a reason why the old nomenclature referred to T-1s as "leased lines" because that's exactly what it is and the reason why it's so expensive. It has little to do with bandwidth.
A cable provider could deliver dedicated bandwidth to you for a lot less than a T-1 line costs -- they just have to pay attention to their contention ratios. The idea of a bandwidth crunch is overblown with existing technology -- to say nothing of future technologies such as DOCSIS 3.0 or fiber to the home.
I'll do something I rarely do -- I'll admit that I was wrong ;) You actually have a valid point that not all liberals are in favor of gun-control -- I was kind of stereotyping, particularly with the "she might get hurt" remark. That does seem to be a stereotypical leftist response though. I still remain skeptical about the Democrats and gun control. There are a fair number of Democrats that don't believe in it (Tester, Webb, Gillibrand) but the party as a whole seems hell bent on bringing it back. The outage over Gillibrand's selection among the downstate democrats here in New York really irked me too.
We'll see what happens when the assault weapons ban v2.0 comes up. Will the pro 2nd amendment Democratic Senators vote to sustain a filibuster on the subject? Time will tell I suppose. I think they are signing their political death warrants if they don't. Bill Clinton blamed the original assault weapons ban for the Republican landslide in 1994 -- and all those rural districts that they won this time around seem likely to turn bright red if they try it again.
Even before he took the mantel he reversed his commitment against telco immunity and gave immunity. [nytimes.com]
That's the moment that he lost my vote and my support. I actually took a week off work and spent it out in Ohio campaigning for him against Hillary. Boy, did I feel like a dumbass afterwards.
I'd donated almost $500 to his campaign too. After the FISA betrayal I wrote them a letter and asked for it all back. They actually gave it to me too. I had a scanned copy of that check as my wallpaper for several months afterwards to remind me of the folly of believing anything that a politician says. I donated every penny of my returned donation to the EFF -- figured they needed it more than he did.
*climbs down from soapbox*
Your absolutely right to be on that soapbox. I call them 'negligent discharges' because that's what they usually are. Dropping a gun and having it go off (is this even possible with modern firearms?) would be an 'accident', but leaving one in the chamber and/or shooting something you didn't intend to seems more like negligence to me.
The reason I want the snap caps (in addition to extra protection for the firing pin) is to establish a procedure that reduces the likelihood of something like this happening. You can't ever be too safe can you? Plus they come in handy for demonstrating flinches -- load one up in the magazine after a few real rounds and don't tell the shooter that it's there -- then see if he/she flinches when they pull the trigger :)
When you start reloading, keep a logbook.
I'm actually going to try and keep a logbook for everything. How many rounds I fired on this visit to the range, which kind of ammo, how I did, etc, etc. As a geek I'm somewhat obsessed with data collection anyway, so this way I can combine two hobbies, help hone my shooting skills and keep track of how many rounds I've put through my guns.
I'm 'old school' enough that I prefer single action pistols and revolvers
That's another reason I like the 1911. That nice single action trigger pull. You don't have to worry about adjusting your shooting style for the first shot. I'll confess that I kind of got roped in by the mystique of Browning's creation but I actually shoot it better than all the other handguns I've tried so I don't feel too bad about buying one :)
I don't have to use my email for work, so I might not check my inbox more than two or three times a week
I'll shoot you an e-mail later. I can't access it from work, hence why I keep responding on /.
P.S. You wouldn't happen to be near Stillwater, Oklahoma?
Naw, Upstate New York here. I picked a great state to live in and get into the shooting sports, didn't I? I suppose it could be worse, I could be in California or Illinois. 90% of my shooting up to this point has actually been in Pennsylvania -- I live pretty close to the border and they actually have state sponsored gun ranges and liberal laws down there. I have a relative in PA who has showed me the ropes and helped me in my handgun selection process.
Here in NYS you can't even legally hold a handgun without a permit. The only saving grace is that I reside upstate and most of the counties (including mine) are pro 2nd amendment so I'll actually be able to get one. They don't regulate long guns either, whereas in NYC you can't even buy a .22 rifle without a permit.
Where were you 2nd amendment warriors during the Bush years when FEMA did a gun grab in New Orleans after they botched the relief effort after Katrina?
My understanding is that didn't originate with FEMA, it originated with Mayor Nagin. Anyway, the NRA was all over it and legislation was eventually passed on a Federal level to prohibit Federal resources from being used to seize lawfully possessed firearms. I'm pretty sure the state of Louisiana passed similiar legislation although you'd have to check with someone who follows their politics to get specifics.
and while some companies will have limits, others wont, and they will advertise that way
Or they'll just all collude in the manner that the wireless companies (SMS pricing) have and not bother to actually compete with one another.
T1 service is available almost everywhere, with no caps.
Too bad it's A) unaffordable, B) not really fast enough for a lot of applications (streaming high quality video comes to mind)
the Constitution I'm reading is pretty clear that, with respect to firearms, they are to be unrestricted _explicitly_ within the context of a _well regulated_ militia.
Is that a justification clause or a prefatory clause? SCOTUS seems to think it's a prefatory clause. Furthermore, the latter part of the amendment says: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
How this has come to mean "anybody can have any kind of weapon anywhere at any time and do anything with it they choose" has always been perplexing to me.
It's never meant "do anything with it you choose". The laws against assault/murder/menacing/etc don't magically cease to apply merely because you carry a gun. The 2nd amendment isn't a license to commit acts that you would otherwise be prohibited from committing if you were unarmed. To claim otherwise is to sow FUD to further your argument and I would hope that you are better than that.
As far as "any kind of weapon" goes, the reason that the NRA and most sportsman are opposed to gun control aimed at specific types of guns (so-called "assault weapons") is because that gun control is typically written by people that don't understand firearms and the threats contained therein are typically manufactured. According to most crime statistics "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime (1% of homicides before the original ban took affect), so why do we need to regulate them?
Having been robbed myself, I can say I'm glad that I didn't have a firearm available to me at the time
What if he had opted to try and kill you instead of leaving you alive as a witness? Would you still be happy that you didn't have a firearm available?
but even putting that aside and assuming that shooting robbers is a desirable outcome
Shooting somebody is never a desirable outcome. It's simply more desirable than being murdered yourself. I would never shoot anybody over property -- but if I thought my life was in danger then I'd shoot them as many times as it took to remove that danger. Most gun owners would feel the same way. Talk to somebody in law enforcement or the military who has had to take a life to defend themselves -- it's a horrible thing to have to do and you have to live with it forever. Few people walk around with guns hoping they get a chance to shoot someone.
I've never seen anything to convince me that a proliferation of firearms won't create more violent altercations than it prevents.
Go read through this document when you get a chance and see if it changes your mind. Here's a few of the penitent facts, although you should consider reading all of it when you have the time:
1) 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
2) 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are âoehot burglariesâ which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a âoehot burglaryâ rate of only 13%.
3) 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
4) Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.
Because there are other factors at play such as population density.
So what your saying is that the availability of guns has little to do with violence and there are other factors at play? Thank you for agreeing with me. <stephen colbert>I accept your apology</stephen colbert>
New York is way more dense and it has strict gun control laws AND the crime rate is not nearly as high as it is in the Baltimore area, not by total volume OR per capita.
The big difference I can think of between NYC and Baltimore is that poverty is much more rampant in Baltimore. It would seem to me that the big city mayors should be doing something about this instead of trying to infringe on a constitutionally protected right, wouldn't you agree?
It's what you just did ;)
They don't want you sniffing the IP addresses of every other person watching videos. There's probably some privacy law about that.
If there is such a law I'd be curious to read it. It would be utterly unenforceable in any case and I think you lose your right to privacy when you start relying on a p2p system to provide you with content.
Most modern centerfire firearms can be safely dry fired, (so they say), but I like the extra insurance.
Snap caps are also additional insurance against negligent discharges. I figure that if I make chambering a snap cap part of my dry fire routine then that's extra insurance against doing something boneheaded like leaving a round in the chamber. I'd like to say that I'd never be this stupid but better safe than sorry as they say.
By far, the overwhelming majority of them really enjoy it if they are introduced to shooting correctly! (and don't be surprised if she gets to a skill level that allows her to outshoot you!!)
I could see my gf getting into it eventually. First I have to convince her that the gun isn't going to let itself out of the safe, load itself and then kill us in our sleep. Actually she's not that bad, she just hasn't ever been around guns. My family had them growing up so I'm more comfortable around them. I'll probably try and talk her into giving it a try when the weather gets nicer and I have a decent .22 for her to shoot.
Probably not needed here, but: Safety First!
What, are you telling me that I shouldn't try to Mexican carry my glock while wearing sweatpants and drinking? ;)
I want to heartily thank you for one of my more enjoyable conversations on /.!
Yeah, it's been fun. Thanks for giving me another excuse not to do anything productive ;) I'm around fairly often so I'll keep an eye out for you and will check this thread again later tonight :)
So true, we need to start electing engineers
The last time we did that it didn't work out so well......
GW did some terrible things with our freedom
Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights to appease the far wing of his party. Oh, wait......
why else would we have the 10th amendment?
Has either political party ever taken the 10th amendment seriously?
Hmm, maybe I should think about making a long gun my next purchase then. The 10/22 looks pretty good and actually within my price range. Still can't decide on whether I want the conversion kit or a .22 pistol for cheaper handgun plinking. Guess I'll make that decision after I'm done with the break-in period on my .45 :)
Your striving for muscle memory and consistency...that takes a lot of shooting.
I've also debated picking up some snap caps and dry firing for this same purpose. Might make it more affordable and annoy the girlfriend less if I'm not spending every weekend daylight hour at the range ;)
(hell you only joined WWII because you needed a fleet)
Huh????
So pretending that if the UK/France where well armed WWII would have been prevented quickly by an early strike is ridiculous.
Then what would have happened if the UK/France had actually waged war when Poland was invaded instead of sitting on their asses while she was raped and conquered?
Give them security by removing Isreals atomic option?
And just how do you suggest going about this?
They wouldn't stand a chance against any civilization who could travel here.
They will after we unleash our secret weapon: A Jewish cable repairman armed with the latest in iBook technology ;)
Shooting down satellites is not that easy
Yeah, you'd need cutting edge technology from the 80s to be able to do something like that.
Does anyone actually believe that click-through licenses are valid?
Who gives a shit if it's valid? Is the no-monitoring part enforceable? They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets? They gonna push that DRM out to my gateway to make sure I'm not capturing them there?
This is what happens when you let the lawyers draft the EULA without even consulting with the techies.....
Noticed how much upload bandwidth was being used and fired up Wireshark to figure out what was going on. Hang on a sec, there's a knock at the doo$*)&!&*()@*!)(*)(NO CARRIER
Imagine if the US had addressed a particular problem in 1939 instead of 1941
Why is it our job to deal with European problems?
Then we'd have seen terrorism emerge way earlier.
Terrorism had already 'emerged' it just wasn't called terrorism.
Germany was economically crippled and, worse, humiliated after WW1. A swift retaliation after Hitler decided to occupy some of the countries, wiping him off the map and forcing Germany to surrender yet again would not have solved this problem.
No, the only thing that would have solved that problem would have been a little bit of forward thinking on the part of the French. That notwithstanding though a short war every generations would not have totaled up to the body count seen in WW2.
The solution was only found after both sides found that it's better for peace to accept the mutual right to exist.
Boy, your the sunny optimist. I think the solution was only found after the Germans were utterly and totally defeated and nuclear weapons made total war too horrible to contemplate. There's also the matter of the Berlin Airlift and the fact that we staked everything (including our own cities after the advent of the ICBM) on defending the German people (in our zone anyway) from Russian revenge. Revenge that was (IMHO) completely justified after what the Germans did to the Soviet Union.
Your imagined body count in that scenario is low, over a billion would die
I guess that depends on what's being targeted. As it stands now the Chinese don't have a lot of assets that can reach CONUS -- so why we would go after cities when we could take out those assets and remove the threat to our country? Counterforce as opposed to countervalue.
If they hit our cities first I would imagine that we would respond in kind -- but they have to realize this and are hopefully more rational than that.