ForumGarden

Thank you big "0" for making us safe from nukes now.



washingtonpost.com



By the way Barry, Didn't world powers try to limit the numbers and size of warships and the like after WW1? You might want to look up how that worked out. Then quit wasting OUR money running around making a big fool of yourself.

I agree with you entirely hoppy. A nuclear arsenal is the sole guarantee of sovereign integrity.

Every country should have a few.

Great. Now we will only be able to annihilate the earth five times, instead of twenty.

I feel MUCH safer.

Personally, I'm in no hurry to die in a nuclear explosion. This is a good thing.

hoppy;1302641 wrote: Thank you big "0" for making us safe from nukes now.




He says, "You're welcome."

I find it amusing that first people give him crap for not accomplishing anything, then when he pulls off a miracle, it's not good enough.

Saint_;1302699 wrote: He says, "You're welcome."

I find it amusing that first people give him crap for not accomplishing anything, then when he pulls off a miracle, it's not good enough.


Some folks just never satisfied.

As my grampa used to say, "They'd whine if they was hung with a new rope."

Saint_;1302699 wrote: He says, "You're welcome."

I find it amusing that first people give him crap for not accomplishing anything, then when he pulls off a miracle, it's not good enough.


Do you think just because "0" says so, anyone will limit anything? It didn't work after WW1, and it won't work now. All "0"'s signing amounted to was more cheap publicity for him. Has he stopped N Korea from it's quest for nukes? Or Iran?

We need to make nukes obsolete by inventing a weapon much more awesome.

hoppy;1302713 wrote: Do you think just because "0" says so, anyone will limit anything? It didn't work after WW1, and it won't work now. All "0"'s signing amounted to was more cheap publicity for him. Has he stopped N Korea from it's quest for nukes? Or Iran?

We need to make nukes obsolete by inventing a weapon much more awesome.


Yeah, one of those planet busters like in the Star Wars flick.

Then give the leader of EVERY nation a remote that can set it off.

When someone gets Really Pissed and thinks they are completely screwed by another country, then they can press their remote and we are ALL done.

I bet folks would get a lot more diplomacy and tact, real fast.

hoppy;1302713 wrote: Do you think just because "0" says so, anyone will limit anything? It didn't work after WW1.


Who, out of interest, broke the Battleship restriction treaties which followed World War 1? I take it that's the comparison you're drawing with today's nuclear arsenal. I thought every country on earth had stuck to it rigidly.

spot;1302778 wrote: Who, out of interest, broke the Battleship restriction treaties which followed World War 1? I take it that's the comparison you're drawing with today's nuclear arsenal. I thought every country on earth had stuck to it rigidly.


The first treaty was signed in 1922. Things started going to hell in the '30's.



And, I can see this happening with any nuke treaty.

Ah. So... nobody did actually break any of the treaties? They used legitimate legal termination clauses and subsequently started escalating?

I'm not sure that's a reason not to sign up to a treaty in the first place. They did the job they were designed to do. Just think how many scrapheap battleships the 20s would have otherwise built anyhow if they'd arms-raced early, all completely obsolete by the end of the 30s.

hoppy;1302713 wrote:

We need to make nukes obsolete by inventing a weapon much more awesome.


Be careful what you wish for Hoppy.

spot;1302793 wrote: Ah. So... nobody did actually break any of the treaties? They used legitimate legal termination clauses and subsequently started escalating?

I'm not sure that's a reason not to sign up to a treaty in the first place. They did the job they were designed to do. Just think how many scrapheap battleships the 20s would have otherwise built anyhow if they'd arms-raced early, all completely obsolete by the end of the 30s.


Somehow Germany managed to field an army, airforce and armored divisions against treaty terms, I believe.

My point is, everything will go on as always. Nothing will change much. Big "0"'s little show was just that, a show to help bolster his downward spiraling image.

hoppy;1302868 wrote: Somehow Germany managed to field an army, airforce and armored divisions against treaty terms, I believe.


I thought the issue you'd brought up was the Battleship treaties. "Didn't world powers try to limit the numbers and size of warships and the like after WW1? You might want to look up how that worked out" - I'm not sure the re-occupation of the Rhineland comes into the thread at all.

spot;1302948 wrote: I thought the issue you'd brought up was the Battleship treaties. "Didn't world powers try to limit the numbers and size of warships and the like after WW1? You might want to look up how that worked out" - I'm not sure the re-occupation of the Rhineland comes into the thread at all.


Whatever.

hoppy;1302956 wrote: Whatever.


Then I think we have a conclusion. Every signatory country on earth stuck rigidly to the Battleship treaties after World War 1. I take it that every signatory country on nuclear arms reduction will do the same. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty isn't yet in force. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was never signed by India, Pakistan or Israel; North Korea legally withdrew from the treaty seven years ago, and Iran claims to be in full compliance with it. Are you suggesting the US or the Russians have ever been in breach of any of the SALT treaty provisions in the past - they're bilateral, not multilateral.

spot;1302958 wrote: Then I think we have a conclusion. Every signatory country on earth stuck rigidly to the Battleship treaties after World War 1. I take it that every signatory country on nuclear arms reduction will do the same. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty isn't yet in force. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was never signed by India, Pakistan or Israel; North Korea legally withdrew from the treaty seven years ago, and Iran claims to be in full compliance with it. Are you suggesting the US or the Russians have ever been in breach of any of the SALT treaty provisions in the past - they're bilateral, not multilateral.


Whatever. Dang if you ain't hard to beat spot. Just like they say a tiny penis is.

hoppy;1302962 wrote: Whatever. Dang if you ain't hard to beat spot. Just like they say a tiny penis is.


You might want to look up how it worked out, that's all. Then you could explain how reducing the US nuclear arsenal involves wasting taxpayer money. Your implication was that arms reduction had led in the past to the greater expense of an eventual war because one set of signatories had broken the terms of the arms limitation agreement, if I read you correctly. The shilly-shallying has been trying to find out whether that was actually what you'd meant and I now take it that it was. I suggest it's an inaccurate point of view, for the reasons I've given.

spot;1302975 wrote: You might want to look up how it worked out, that's all. Then you could explain how reducing the US nuclear arsenal involves wasting taxpayer money. Your implication was that arms reduction had led in the past to the greater expense of an eventual war because one set of signatories had broken the terms of the arms limitation agreement, if I read you correctly. The shilly-shallying has been trying to find out whether that was actually what you'd meant and I now take it that it was. I suggest it's an inaccurate point of view, for the reasons I've given.


We signed those treaties in 1922 but wound up with WW2 involving the largest battleships and carriers ever. So, those treaties just bought a few years, then we had to play catch-up. Round and round it goes. Nothing's really being gained.

hoppy;1303042 wrote: We signed those treaties in 1922 but wound up with WW2 involving the largest battleships and carriers ever. So, those treaties just bought a few years, then we had to play catch-up. Round and round it goes. Nothing's really being gained.


But the outbreak of World War Two wasn't caused by the signing of the 1922 treaty, surely. And any battleships and carriers built in the 20s would have never been of the slightest use in World War 2, if they'd been built they'd have been either scrapped voluntarily or sunk ignominiously but either way they'd have been completely obsolete. How would building them have either saved cost or deterred war?

spot;1303049 wrote: But the outbreak of World War Two wasn't caused by the signing of the 1922 treaty, surely. And any battleships and carriers built in the 20s would have never been of the slightest use in World War 2, if they'd been built they'd have been either scrapped voluntarily or sunk ignominiously but either way they'd have been completely obsolete. How would building them have either saved cost or deterred war?


Gotta disagree. The USS Arizona was built in 1914 or '15. Could have been a deadly foe in a fight. Battleships built in the '20's could easily have been modernized as was the Arizona.

I still say, all a treaty does is buy a little time. Or give the illusion of buying time.

hoppy;1303068 wrote: Gotta disagree. The USS Arizona was built in 1914 or '15. Could have been a deadly foe in a fight. Battleships built in the '20's could easily have been modernized as was the Arizona.Of all the curious examples to have chosen! - tell me, did the USS Arizona ever fire its guns in anger?

"Could have been a deadly foe in a fight"? Against what? Fishing boats?

spot;1303080 wrote: Of all the curious examples to have chosen! - tell me, did the USS Arizona ever fire its guns in anger?

"Could have been a deadly foe in a fight"? Against what? Fishing boats?


"Could have been a deadly foe in a fight"? Against what? Fishing boats?


Well, guess we'll never know.

hoppy;1303083 wrote: Well, guess we'll never know.On the contrary. There were a dozen Battleships produced to Standard Type from the same production line during and after World War 1 which were still in operation in World War 2. Two failed to make it past Pearl Harbor. One of those was the USS Arizona.The ten surviving Standard Type battleships were too slow to escort fleet carriers but gave service throughout World War II primarily as fire support for amphibious landings. Six participated in the last battleship versus battleship engagement in naval history, the Battle of Surigao Strait.That was three major Japanese warships trying to sail through fourteen major allied warships in a narrow waterway, I'm not sure the result was unexpected. One of the two Japanese battleships was picked off early by destroyers. And that, as far as I can see, is the only time any of the twelve Standard Type battleships took on anything close to their own weight in their entire combined service lives.Pennsylvania was unable to find a target and her guns remained silent. Mississippi only obtained a solution at the end of the battle-line action, and then fired just one (full) salvo of twelve 14 in (356 mm) shells. This was the last salvo ever to be fired by a battleship against another heavy ship, ending an era in naval history.I reckon all twelve of them qualified as gun platforms by World War 2, the Arizona included.