1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

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

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Gnostic Christian Bishop, Oct 12, 2017.

  1. Gnostic Christian Bishop

    Gnostic Christian Bishop Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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
     
  2. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    so far every newweapon has been used in war, even in a nuclear weapon is self destruction somenbody will use it one day
     
  3. Gnostic Christian Bishop

    Gnostic Christian Bishop Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    We used it to retaliate.

    No one has ever used them as a pre-emptive strike and that makes a huge difference to the soldier with the key and is a honorable soldier. An honorable soldier does not war against innocent women and children.

    Regards
    DL
     
  4. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    did not JAPAN ATTACK CIVILIANS IN PEARL HARBOUR AND MANIA AT THE START OF THIER WAR <HONOUR IS NOT NECESSARY PART OF WAR. EVEN THE USA DID SIMILAR IN HIMOSGERIA AND NEGASAKI> THIS WAS NOT NECESSARY OR IN RETALIATION it may have shorten the war, BUt it did not effect the outcome. .THE USA COULD DO THE SAME Again as could North KORea,
     
  5. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    ...and the distinction becomes lost when the "honorable soldier" calculates the acceptability and quantity of "low-level" collarteral damage in order to obtain the desired outcome? Collateral damage being the
    Discuss this doctrine based on the accomplishement of the primary mission or is your idea that there is no such thing as an "honorable soldier"?

    Do you agree that there is a distinction between a nuclear attack and a nuclear war?
    If you agree with the phrase "war on terror" you understand it is nomninally a low level conflict, however, it is conducted on a worldwide scale. The theatre of operations and the countries involved thus make it a low-level world conflict therefore would you agree that if these low level combatants detonated a nuclear weapon then retaliation is problematic; how do you retaliate and against whom?
    You have your world war with nuclear attack but without a clear enemy, so what are your options? MAD is no longer valid terminology.
     
  6. Gnostic Christian Bishop

    Gnostic Christian Bishop Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Only if they seek dishonor.

    None of those instances were potential extinction events.

    Regards
    DL
     
  7. Gnostic Christian Bishop

    Gnostic Christian Bishop Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    There is honor in the hearts of our military. That was my point.

    The first nuclear strike could lead to a feeding frenzy and WWIII.

    No same honorable person will knowingly bring destruction to his loved ones or our environment.

    That is why M A D works.

    Regards
    DL
     
  8. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    If an IS cell had access to a nuclear device do you think they agree with that line of thought?
     
  9. Gnostic Christian Bishop

    Gnostic Christian Bishop Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I said sane and honorable, not insane and dishonorable.

    You are speaking of why all nuclear missiles should be scrapped as they might be stolen and uses and I would agree with that.

    Regards
    DL
     
  10. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    From who's perspective?
     
  11. Gnostic Christian Bishop

    Gnostic Christian Bishop Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I can only see from mine.

    Can you see from someone else's perspective?

    I guess we all can but not as accurately as they can.

    Regards
    DL
     
  12. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    One man's sane is anothers insane....one mans honourable is another mans dishonourable....question of perspective
     
  13. Gnostic Christian Bishop

    Gnostic Christian Bishop Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Indeed.

    Mine assumes a normal individual who understands honor.

    Regards
    DL
     
Loading...

Share This Page