Military Gear that should have seen service

[Cook]

Watch out Cooky ... otherwise I'll come over your way and trample you with the boot of Military oppression !

Get in line Stab.
I am currently being oppressed by the woolly slipper of post natal depression and the little woollen booty of demanding infanthood.

I feel like Mark Webber; doesn’t matter what I do I can’t win.

 

[backstab]

Get in line Stab.
I am currently being oppressed by the woolly slipper of post natal depression and the little woollen booty of demanding infanthood.

I feel like Mark Webber; doesn’t matter what I do I can’t win.

I see your wooly slipper and woollen booties and raise you a 4 year old , 5 year old and a 12 year old (who think's he is 21)... 3 months of Long Service looking after them .... 3 months of drinking myself stupid

 

[Cook]

I am beginning to believe the saying that you inherit insanity from your kids.

 

[Comablack]

Cook you mean theres another way to aquire insanity other than your children ? And backstab ill see your 12 yr old and raise you 2 teen girls

 

[Cook]

And backstab ill see your 12 yr old and raise you 2 teen girls

Coma spends most of his time sitting quietly in his rocking chair on the front verandah. Just him, his Rottweiler and his shotgun.

 

[jaybird]

Cook you mean theres another way to aquire insanity other than your children ? And backstab ill see your 12 yr old and raise you 2 teen girls

"You have a teenage son, you only need to worry about one penis. I've got a teenage daughter, I need to worry about every penis in the world!"

 

[zoomar]

Now, assuming the Tillmans came to be, what would they be named? And more to the point, what role would they have? Here's what I'd figure.

Any operational Tillmans would require the Washington Naval Treaty to not happen at all, as it would make a 80,000-ton giant impossible. This has the after affect of not stopping a growing arms race between the US, Britain and Japan.

Now, assuming these are authorized in 1919-1920 and begin construction, with hull numbers BB-49 for the first. No Washington Naval Treaty means that the US' battle fleet probably includes the South Dakota class (the first one) and the Lexington-class battlecruisers, which the Tillmans would more likely work with - their 25 knot+ speed allows them to be the heavy backup to whatever the Lexingtons can't handle, which admittedly isn't much. Keeping the names from IOTL's South Dakotas and remembering that the name of the South Dakota class was already chosen, the likely BB-49 (the first Tillman) would be Indiana, followed by Montana and North Carolina. I can't see any more than three being built in any scenario.

The first Tillmans are finished in 1923-24 and commissioned, with Indiana, Montana and North Carolina being by some margin the largest battleships in the world at the time. The six Lexington-class battlecruisers are also built, and the Tillmans are assigned to many of the same duties as the Lexingtons as the Tillmans are considerably faster than the Standard design battleships. The Tillmans' casemate mounts prove to be difficult to operate and useless in heavy seas, and they are removed in 1920s refits.

The Tillmans force other nations to move ahead with bigger and heavier designs. Japan finishes its eight-six fleet in the early 1930s, with the Kii, Amagi and Nagato class vessels all seeing completion. Britain winds up scrapping some of its oldest vessels and calling on Commonwealth help to build the Royal Navy to the point where it can keep up with the Americans - but even then, the USN has a decisive advantage over everybody else.

The Tillmans are refitted and modernized in the 1930s, substantially increasing their AA armament, among other improvements. The Tillmans, however, suffer from a relative lack of armoring, and this cannot be improved without the beasts being unable to pass through the Panama Canal. Despite this, the Tillmans are an active part of the USN right through the 1920s and 1930s.

Knowledge of Germany's Bismarck keeps Indiana and Montana in the Atlantic, while North Carolina goes to the Pacific. North Carolina is severely damaged at Pearl Harbor, taking particular damage from aircraft bombs - but she, like all the other vessels at Pearl Harbor save Arizona and Maryland, is repaired and sent back into the Ocean. The speed of the Tillmans and the Lexington class battlecruisers makes them useful parts of the fleet, even as the first new modern designs, the Iowa (OTL North Carolina), Missouri (OTL South Dakotas) and Ohio (OTL Iowa) start to arrive in the fleet.

Japan's immense Yamato is a primary concern for everybody, but the Japanese, knowing of the Tillmans' massive battery of 15 18" guns, is tasked to find and destroy the Tillmans. Following Pearl Harbor and the loss of many of the American fleet for a time, Indiana and three Lexingtons go to the Pacific. That results in Indiana being called in to back up two of her smaller sisters during the famed battle with Kirishima. The Japanese ship damages the two smaller battleships, but Indiana's giant 18" guns blast the Japanese ship to bits.

North Carolina, substantially rebuilt, returns to the USN in mid 1943, and having had much of its superstructure rebuilt and many improvements made, she is fearsome - and the Japanese know it. The same major upgrades soon are fitted to Indiana and Montana. They serve out the war with distinction, though Indiana is the only one to fight an enemy battleship, though North Carolina was dispatched to go after Yamato if the bombing attempt on her as she move to reinforce Okinawa failed. In many ways, North Carolina's crew was a little disappointed they never had the chance to go toe-to-toe with the Japanese beast. The war over, all three are decommissioned in 1946 and remain in the reserve fleet, and all are eventually scrapped in the early 1960s.

Nice TL, but my guess is that IF the Tillmans were built, they would have substituted for the 1920 South Dakota class, because they were design studies that formed part of the background of the SoDaks. My own guess is they would have been given the same names: South Dakota, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, Iowa, and Massachusetts. Assuming we are talking about the 85,000 Ton 15x18" gun monstrosities, they would have been virtually tiwce as large as any ships then currently under serious development in the UK and Japan, and far more powerful. They would have been, in effect, new "Dreadnoughts" - ships that rendered most other battleships immediately obsolete.

Now, presuming that economic realities and political resistance do not matter in this BB-wank (remember the "Tillman" design themeslves were requested by a legislator concerned about the new battleship race), it reasonable to presume the British N3 and G3 battlecruisers and a number of the Japanese Amagi or Owari class ships, as well as the No 13 design, would have been cancelled and replaced with similarly gargantuan ships capable of at least 30kts. By 1940, all three main Navies would have a core of between 10 and 15 superduper superfast battleships in the Tillman mode, supported by a much reduced number of second line ships armed with 15 or 16-inch guns (Nagatos, Kagas, Colorados, Lexingtons, Hoods, Queen Elizabeths, etc - basically ships already constructed or under construction when the Tillmans are laid down in early 1920's). The disparity between these ships and the Tillmans would be not unlike the relationship between predreadnoughts and dreadnoughts in the WW1 era - ie they would be used only in marginal theatres, or against second tier navies. I'd suspect that all ships armed with anything less than 15 inch guns would have been removed from service and scrapped by then.

Although of minor import with respect to the major fleets, the construction of 80,000 ton ships capable of 30 kts by the US, Japanese, and British navies would have significantly affected German Versailles-era planning. IN OTL, with Allied building at least somewhat constrained by the Washington Treaty, Germany could hope to develop ships like the "pocket battleships" that fell in between slow BBs they could (in theory)outrun and fast CAs they could (in theory) outfight. In this TL, with many navies possessing large, fast capital ships capable of catching and destroying the Graf Spee class, Germany would be faced with two very unpalatable choices: either Weimar directly abrogates the Versailles Treaty far earlier than Hitler did in OTL, or they acknowledge the impossibility of maintaining a navy larger and more effective than Sweden's. My guess is that in the mid 1920's Germany would opt for the second alternative, and built a series of small coastal defense battleships not unlike those being designed and built by Sweden. If and when the Nazis take over and begin to rearm, Germany might be so far behind that even Hitler realizes the impossibility of building battleships and all effort goes into submarines and extremely fast cruiser vessles (maybe even carriers) (no Scharnhorsts, nor Bismarcks, et al). I could see both France and Italy coming to a similar conclusion, based on European - not global - realities.

 

[glowjack]

quote:
In the future do not disparage the men and women who defend your very right to post such drivel

nuff said

That's only when their defending, which means deployed on their homeland, not somewhere on a pre-emptive war. And with the way politicians and the media concious military fear casualties they'll resort to indiscriminate killing (as in killing with bombs, tanks, and artillery) anything short of a knife and ID check is indiscriminate.

kill one and your a murder, kill one in uniform and your a patriot, kill them all and your a hero.

Individually soldiers are arguablly acting in self-defence(you can say your under attack and killing in self-defense but it was your choice to be deployed in a situation where you will most likely kill or be killed), but it doesn't excuse the overall conduct of the military whether its good or bad, and soldiers exists for the sole purpose of killing, otherwise they wouldn't be called soldiers. You can also say soldiers are just doing orders but if everyone obeyed authority then there shouldn't be revoluntions.

Armies are not on the defence when they're 3000 miles overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan, and if you want to debate about just/unjust wars and conduct of wars just holler.

 

[glowjack]

I'm guessing your trolling or trying to start a flame war. So my logical answer to your post is this.

Nations shall always need militaries. The history of humanity has made it clear that conflict will be a considerable part of our future. As such nations need to be able to defend themselves and if necessary deal with those who threaten us or our Allies.

No as Patton said the objective of war is to make the OTHER DUMB SOB DIE FOR HIS COUNTRY!

No, I agree, its unfortunate but it underlines the fact that the military's main purpose is not beneficial but rather self orientated like a parasite. Intent and reality are two things, I said they should not exist-yes they do exist right now but can you give a reason why they should in the far future?

And its still killing, unless killing is right.

And what's wrong with a little passion?

 

[jaybird]

That's only when their defending, which means deployed on their homeland, not somewhere on a pre-emptive war. And with the way politicians and the media concious military fear casualties they'll resort to indiscriminate killing (as in killing with bombs, tanks, and artillery) anything short of a knife and ID check is indiscriminate.

kill one and your a murder, kill one in uniform and your a patriot, kill them all and your a hero.

Individually soldiers are arguablly acting in self-defence, but it doesn't excuse the overall conduct of the military whether its good or bad, and soldiers exists for the sole purpose of killing, otherwise they wouldn't be called soldiers.

Armies are not on the defence when they're 3000 miles overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan, and if you want to debate about just/unjust wars and conduct of wars just holler.

Nothing to say about Iraq, it was a genuine bad idea.

Afghanistan? Considering they officially sponsored a paramilitary group that attacked another nation's soil? That's called an act of war. And any nation has every right to respond to an act of war in kind. Afghanistan is as much a pre-emptive war as the Great Patriotic War was.

No, I agree, its unfortunate but it underlines the fact that the military's main purpose is not beneficial but rather self orientated like a parasite. Intent and reality are two things, I said they should not exist-yes they do exist right now but can you give a reason why they should in the far future?

And its still killing, unless killing is right.

And what's wrong with a little passion?

Umm...where to start.

First, a military in a democracy (which I assume you live in, otherwise you wouldn't have the right to say these things) is commanded by the civil authority, and thus an extension of the civil government. Insofar as it exists to serve the government, then yes, it is "self orientated like a parasite". Then again, so is the police, so is the fire department...

Why should armies exist in the future? Well, you know...if we've had war for as long as humanity has existed, it's pretty reasonable to assume we'll always have war, as long as humanity exists.

Killing? Well, where do you live? Anywhere in continental Europe? You wouldn't have the right to question the government, if it weren't for killing. Violence is only a means to an end. Or do you also question whether it is right for police to use firearms?

 

[glowjack]

Nothing to say about Iraq, it was a genuine bad idea.

Afghanistan? Considering they officially sponsored a paramilitary group that attacked another nation's soil? That's called an act of war. And any nation has every right to respond to an act of war in kind. Afghanistan is as much a pre-emptive war as the Great Patriotic War was.

Umm...where to start.

First, a military in a democracy (which I assume you live in, otherwise you wouldn't have the right to say these things) is commanded by the civil authority, and thus an extension of the civil government. Insofar as it exists to serve the government, then yes, it is "self orientated like a parasite". Then again, so is the police, so is the fire department...

Why should armies exist in the future? Well, you know...if we've had war for as long as humanity has existed, it's pretty reasonable to assume we'll always have war, as long as humanity exists.

Killing? Well, where do you live? Anywhere in continental Europe? You wouldn't have the right to question the government, if it weren't for killing. Violence is only a means to an end. Or do you also question whether it is right for police to use firearms?

Well first, is every taliban out to nail Americans by traveling 3000 miles to a country with dfferent values and no friends/family just so they can kill American civilians? Our governments can claim Al-quida did every evil, it still doesn't make sense for the Taliban to piss off the most powerful nation in the world, even a 5 year old knows not to touch dangerous things. But you believe everything the government says right? Cause they can't be bad people.

You can't punish a nation for what a few individuals did, that's collective punishment and Al-quida is a terrorist organization, it doesn't have a nationality or borders, terrorism stems from social doscontent not just because they hate god, beer, democracy, and everything American, the military is not the solution but rather social reform is (unless the military kills the population the terrorists recruit from).

And as long as we're on individual instances what about Iraq? where's the WMDs? where's Al-quida in a nation that Al-quida offered to fight against in the first gulf war and public on multiple occasions denounces?

And so here's the democracy arguement, as I recall the democractic state of America had segergation, oppression, unjust wars, eugenics, internment camps, supported human-rights abusive states, and all in a democratic government. If the majority of people voted to kill all blacks in america it would be popular but not right. The police and fire department are not self-perpetuated , they exist because there will always be fires and a need for order. The military is self-perpetuated as it only exists beacuse others of its kind do (the alternate reason is to extend power over another physically, generate profits for companies, generate votes for keeping bases open, generate votes for getting contracts for your state...etc).

Why should armies exist in the future? Well, you know...if we've had war for as long as humanity has existed, it's pretty reasonable to assume we'll always have war, as long as humanity exists.

Yes, humans have always hated, killed, and destroyed throughout the ages, but humans have also always hoped, sure we have militaries now but there needs to be a dream if change is ever to come. If people accepted the status-quo then the earth will still be flat. Your arguing that since it seems endless that we should all just keep killing each other.

Killing? Well, where do you live? Anywhere in continental Europe? You wouldn't have the right to question the government, if it weren't for killing.

So to participate in a democracy I must first kill someone? That is such a poor point, there is nothing that can be done by the past or for the past. I can argue that the 2 nukes that nail Japan ended WWII so it justifies more nukes on more cities of civilians.

Violence is only a means to an end. Or do you also question whether it is right for police to use firearms?

Killing is never truely nesscary as long as people can think, it's called negotiation. it's simple ignorance , impatience and greed that causes people to choose the easy violent path. And violence is the worst means to an end as it destroys, I do not question the necessity of the police but I do question their authority to kill. True pacifism is to only harm in self defence but also to minimize harm on the other.
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. ~David Friedman[/FONT]

 

[Atomo]

Thank God! Someone else!
I just couldnt resist it

SLAM haunts my dreams. Or it did for two days after I first saw it.

Why would the humble little SLAM do that?
Could it be the direct cycle nuclear scramjet?
The 20 plus thermonuclear weapons that pop out of the top as it burns over you at Mach 3+?

I love the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile because it is a total weapon.

*** A hint, Charles Stross makes mention of this weapon in two of his stories, 'Missile Gap' and 'A Colder War'.

 

[jaybird]

"It makes no sense". Sure, it doesn't make sense, but it still happened. It is indisputable that the Taliban, as an organization, DID support OBL. Or do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government?

You can't punish a nation for what a few individuals do, but you sure can for what its government does and what it goes along with. We sort of established that at Nuremburg.

I've already agreed with you about Iraq.

Sure, militaries exist because other militaries exist. It'd be jolly good if we could all disarm and live happily ever after, wouldn't it? Too bad it only takes one Kim Jong Il, Hideki Tojo, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler to mess up the hippy fantasy...

Hey, you know who else aspired to change basic human nature? Eugenicists.

We can 'what-if' all day long, but in the end, murderous dictators will exist, and it will be somebody's sorry-ass job to put them six feet under. You don't need to kill to participate in democracy, but at least be grateful to those who did kill so you can still have your democracy.

What you call negotiation, others would call appeasement. "Peace in our time", anybody?

 

[glowjack]

"It makes no sense". Sure, it doesn't make sense, but it still happened. It is indisputable that the Taliban, as an organization, DID support OBL. Or do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government?
I never said Us gov, I said Al-quida which has no borders.
You can't punish a nation for what a few individuals do, but you sure can for what its government does and what it goes along with. We sort of established that at Nuremburg.
Its called collaboration, which implies some extent of willing participation to harm, whereas not all the civis killed in Afghanistan was taliban or taliban related. And the taliban and Al-quida arent the same, in fact Al-quida is just a label that the CIA used to describe an outdated insurgency. Ana raicha Al Qaeda in arabic is slang for taking a shit, anyone remotely sane terrorist would not name themselves after taking a shit. And anyone can claim to be al-quida, and anyone can be lableled al-quida, all we have is some audio tapes and videos of Bin-ladin claiming responsibility, I can claim to be god and short of disecting me you can't prove otherwise
I've already agreed with you about Iraq.

Sure, militaries exist because other militaries exist. It'd be jolly good if we could all disarm and live happily ever after, wouldn't it? Too bad it only takes one Kim Jong Il, Hideki Tojo, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler to mess up the hippy fantasy...
What's your point? Or are you afraid to dream?
Hey, you know who else aspired to change basic human nature? Eugenicists.
First of all that's an insult, not an arguement, and second of all are humans slaves to their basic urges? Huh? Its called self control. Or do you kill loot and rape just because the thought came into your head?
We can 'what-if' all day long, but in the end, murderous dictators will exist, and it will be somebody's sorry-ass job to put them six feet under. You don't need to kill to participate in democracy, but at least be grateful to those who did kill so you can still have your democracy.
Yes, yes, the past again, I can cite ghandi and how he won with passive disobediance but the past is not a valid arguement as it can neither affect or be affected. And dare to dream my friend, like i said before if you don't believe that a cure to cancer is possible then it'll never be solved since no one will try.
What you call negotiation, others would call appeasement. "Peace in our time", anybody?
Oh, since all negotiation must be appeasement and appeasement only encourages evil people then the only logical thing to do is start bashing everyone's head out eh? Violence is the only option.

 

[jaybird]

Want to debate in a legible manner? It hurts my eyes to read your post.

EDIT: thank you. Next step would be actually using line breaks. Try hitting the 'enter' key.

DOUBLE EDIT: Formatted for your reading convenience.

I never said Us gov, I said Al-quida which has no borders.

Al-Qaeda may have no borders, but it is certain that the Taliban provided them enormous amounts of support, and were fully aware of their goals. Hence, it is one nation utilizing a third agent to attack a second nation, which results in a casus belli.

Its called collaboration, which implies some extent of willing participation to harm, whereas not all the civis killed in Afghanistan was taliban or taliban related. And the taliban and Al-quida arent the same, in fact Al-quida is just a label that the CIA used to describe an outdated insurgency. Ana raicha Al Qaeda in arabic is slang for taking a shit, anyone remotely sane terrorist would not name themselves after taking a shit. And anyone can claim to be al-quida, and anyone can be lableled al-quida, all we have is some audio tapes and videos of Bin-ladin claiming responsibility, I can claim to be god and short of disecting me you can't prove otherwise

Sure, and not all the civilians killed during any war are on the enemy's side. Sort of happens in a war zone. And are you seriously claiming Al-Qaeda doesn't exist? You know that your reasoning is at the same level of televangelists, right? "You can't prove there is no higher being" and all that.

What's your point? Or are you afraid to dream?

My point is that your fantasy about no more armies is impossible, because it only takes one madman and enough people willing to go along with him to screw it up.

First of all that's an insult, not an arguement, and second of all are humans slaves to their basic urges? Huh? Its called self control. Or do you kill loot and rape just because the thought came into your head?

Humans are always in danger of succumbing to basic urges. On an individual level, it's why we have the police. On a national level, it's why we have armies.

Yes, yes, the past again, I can cite ghandi and how he won with passive disobediance but the past is not a valid arguement as it can neither affect or be affected. And dare to dream my friend, like i said before if you don't believe that a cure to cancer is possible then it'll never be solved since no one will try.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. An army is like life insurance...you hope you don't need it, but if you ever need it, boy, you're happy you've got it.

Oh, since all negotiation must be appeasement and appeasement only encourages evil people then the only logical thing to do is start bashing everyone's head out eh? Violence is the only option.

No, I never said that. You said: "Killing is never truely nesscary as long as people can think, it's called negotiation." You are the one talking in absolutes, not me.

 

[glowjack]

Want to debate in a legible manner? It hurts my eyes to read your post.

Is that the best you can do? insult my font?
Here princess, my counterpoints are highlighted in bright red colours beside your points. I like to see your comeback.

"It makes no sense". Sure, it doesn't make sense, but it still happened. It is indisputable that the Taliban, as an organization, DID support OBL. Or do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government?

I never said Us gov, I said Al-quida which has no borders.

You can't punish a nation for what a few individuals do, but you sure can for what its government does and what it goes along with. We sort of established that at Nuremburg.

Its called collaboration, which implies some extent of willing participation to harm, whereas not all the civis killed in Afghanistan was taliban or taliban related. And the taliban and Al-quida arent the same, in fact Al-quida is just a label that the CIA used to describe an outdated insurgency. Ana raicha Al Qaeda in arabic is slang for taking a shit, anyone remotely sane terrorist would not name themselves after taking a shit. And anyone can claim to be al-quida, and anyone can be lableled al-quida, all we have is some audio tapes and videos of Bin-ladin claiming responsibility, I can claim to be god and short of disecting me you can't prove otherwise

I've already agreed with you about Iraq.

Sure, militaries exist because other militaries exist. It'd be jolly good if we could all disarm and live happily ever after, wouldn't it? Too bad it only takes one Kim Jong Il, Hideki Tojo, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler to mess up the hippy fantasy...

What's your point? Or are you afraid to dream?

Hey, you know who else aspired to change basic human nature? Eugenicists.

First of all that's an insult, not an arguement, and second of all are humans slaves to their basic urges? Huh? Its called self control. Or do you kill loot and rape just because the thought came into your head?

We can 'what-if' all day long, but in the end, murderous dictators will exist, and it will be somebody's sorry-ass job to put them six feet under. You don't need to kill to participate in democracy, but at least be grateful to those who did kill so you can still have your democracy.

Yes, yes, the past again, I can cite ghandi and how he won with passive disobediance but the past is not a valid arguement as it can neither affect or be affected. And dare to dream my friend, like i said before if you don't believe that a cure to cancer is possible then it'll never be solved since no one will try.

What you call negotiation, others would call appeasement. "Peace in our time", anybody?

Oh, since all negotiation must be appeasement and appeasement only encourages evil people then the only logical thing to do is start bashing everyone's head out eh? Violence is the only option.

 

[jaybird]

Is that the best you can do? insult my font?
Here princess, my counterpoints are highlighted in bright red colours beside your points. I like to see your comeback.

In civilized debate, we call it a "Point of Personal Privilege", used to ask the opponent to, for example, speak more clearly. I would assume the same courtesy extends to the internet. You will notice that my posts are made in a legible manner I would not be ashamed to show my English teacher. I don't ask for university English standards, merely posts I can read.

Anyways, my response is as above.

 

[gtrof]

Its called collaboration, which implies some extent of willing participation to harm, whereas not all the civis killed in Afghanistan was taliban or taliban related. And the taliban and Al-quida arent the same, in fact Al-quida is just a label that the CIA used to describe an outdated insurgency. Ana raicha Al Qaeda in arabic is slang for taking a shit, anyone remotely sane terrorist would not name themselves after taking a shit. And anyone can claim to be al-quida, and anyone can be lableled al-quida, all we have is some audio tapes and videos of Bin-ladin claiming responsibility, I can claim to be god and short of disecting me you can't prove otherwise

Well first its Al-Qaeda no Al-Quida. Which translates to 'the base'.

Plus I don't know why you think war can be fought without civilian casualties. Yes your right not every civilian in Afghanistan was with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda but Afghanistan was where they were based. The Taliban leadership housed Al-Qaeda and when given the chance to turn over them to the United States failed to do so.

As a result we fought a war that tried to kill as few people as possible. Did innocent people die, yeah but that's war. Its a unfortunate part of it that can not be avoided even with the smartest weapons. There is ample evidence that Al-Qaeda carried out 9/11 beyond Bin Laden's acceptance on tapes.

What's your point? Or are you afraid to dream?

First of all that's an insult, not an arguement, and second of all are humans slaves to their basic urges? Huh? Its called self control. Or do you kill loot and rape just because the thought came into your head?

Yeah but your dream is just that at the moment, a dream. There is no way to remove conflict from Planet Earth at the moment.

Yes, yes, the past again, I can cite ghandi and how he won with passive disobediance but the past is not a valid arguement as it can neither affect or be affected. And dare to dream my friend, like i said before if you don't believe that a cure to cancer is possible then it'll never be solved since no one will try.

Ghandi also won because the British were too drained from World War II to hold onto India. Passive disobedience only works if one side plays by the rules. Think that style of change would work in North Korea or Iran?

Oh, since all negotiation must be appeasement and appeasement only encourages evil people then the only logical thing to do is start bashing everyone's head out eh? Violence is the only option.

No, talking is necessary between nations but sometimes it either A) won't work with the parties involved, or B) comprise will mean something worst than fighting. Sometimes you need to fight to defend your country and its interests and friends. I'm sorry but that's how the world works currently.

 

[glowjack]

Al-Qaeda may have no borders, but it is certain that the Taliban provided them enormous amounts of support, and were fully aware of their goals. Hence, it is one nation utilizing a third agent to attack a second nation, which results in a casus belli.

Well it appears we are in disbute about key facts of al-quida, we can't really have an arguement here. Also, claims made without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Sure, and not all the civilians killed during any war are on the enemy's side. Sort of happens in a war zone. And are you seriously claiming Al-Qaeda doesn't exist?

I'm claiming Al-Qaeda does not exist to the extent to justify killing innocents in an ill-guided attempt to destroy it. And just saying it happens and innocents die does not make it right.

My point is that your fantasy about no more armies is impossible, because it only takes one madman and enough people willing to go along with him to screw it up.

Like i said, dare to dream. In the short run is total disarment possible? probably not, is reduction possible, yes. There can be a day where the concept of tool built for killing is alien to the mind, will mental derangement be possible? yes but it can be almost certainly treated with, mental illnesses exists today but they can be cured or pacified if given enough resources.

Humans are always in danger of succumbing to basic urges. On an individual level, it's why we have the police. On a national level, it's why we have armies.

Yes and do all arrgements require military force to gurantee? And having an army as an gurantee is the worst gurantee possible as it allows everyone who has it in surplus to succumb to the basic urges easier.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. An army is like life insurance...you hope you don't need it, but if you ever need it, boy, you're happy you've got it.

Having it doesn't justify using it, I can own a gun legally but if I shot someone it is wrong.

No, I never said that. You said: "Killing is never truely nesscary as long as people can think, it's called negotiation." You are the one talking in absolutes, not me.

So what's your point, negotiation can cause damage due to lack of skill and knowledge, violence in comparision is guarenteed to cause damage.

 

[jaybird]

Well it appears we are in disbute about key facts of al-quida, we can't really have an arguement here. Also, claims made without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Right, conspiracy theories. I don't think I need to provide proof, given how widely available proof is.

I'm claiming Al-Qaeda does not exist to the extent to justify killing innocents in an ill-guided attempt to destroy it. And just saying it happens and innocents die does not make it right.

Back to the conspiracy theories again. No, it's not right innocents die. It's why the US Army is investing so much money into precision weapons that they could be investing into better protection for their own soldiers.

Like i said, dare to dream. In the short run is total disarment possible? probably not, is reduction possible, yes. There can be a day where the concept of tool built for killing is alien to the mind, will mental derangement be possible? yes but it can be almost certainly treated with, mental illnesses exists today but they can be cured or pacified if given enough resources.

Alright, you figure out a way of screening every baby born for every hint of violent tendencies, and I'll go along with you.

Yes and do all arrgements require military force to gurantee? And having an army as an gurantee is the worst gurantee possible as it allows everyone who has it in surplus to succumb to the basic urges easier.

Umm...yes? Unless you can enforce it, a contract is worth the paper it is written on.

Having it doesn't justify using it, I can own a gun legally but if I shot someone it is wrong.

If you shot someone in cold blood it is wrong. If you or someone near you is in immediate danger, you are at least entitled to a reduction of punishment to house arrest, and at most your actions are morally justified.

So what's your point, negotiation can cause damage due to lack of skill and knowledge, violence in comparision is guarenteed to cause damage.

Stomping the Third Reich in 1938 at Munich would have caused far less damage then waiting until Danzig in 1939 did.