Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Have you voted? ;)


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Almagnus1 said:

Hypothetically speaking, assume that the Revolutionary War in the US had the British win, yet elevate the American colonists to British citizens (which is what they all wanted anyhow), and fixed the issues with the British abuse of power in the Americas - so the USA would still a part of the British Empire, yet everything else is largely the same.

Fast forward to WWII, how would the UK have handled the defeat of Germany and Japan? 

Would there have even been a war? Germany would've had to immediately go toe-to-toe with the combined forces of the UK and the US.

1 minute ago, Almagnus1 said:

When talking about a joint US/USSR occupation of Japan, East and West Germany are very relevant to that discussion.

Not when the joint occupation was so avoidable. Nukes weren't the only answer, nor some weird saving grace for Japan.

1 minute ago, Almagnus1 said:

I'm trying to remember what it was that I saw on that, but IIRC the program was like 90% complete, and the Soviets were able to close the gap with the technology that they had seized.

In truth, both Germany and Japan were both really close to having nukes, but they were conquered before they could complete their respective 

I've not heard of this at all. In fact, I thought the Soviets had been working with radiation and bombs since at least the end of WW1, well before even the US started their program (though Russia isn't one of my areas of interest, so I could very well be wrong). And the Jap projects I know of were all in Japan (one was actually in Kyoto) and none of them were near close to being complete at all.

1 minute ago, Almagnus1 said:

I don't think I've made this clear, but I'll say it anyways: Nuking both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities and arguably war crimes.

Fair enough.

1 minute ago, Almagnus1 said:

That said, I strongly believe that they were necessary evils to end WWII and put the US and USSR into a 50 year stalemate, rather than an immediate war with each other.

For the former, it's simply not the case, though. Japan was looking for an end to the war, too. They wanted to make peace under some very reasonable terms, but the US refused them repeatedly. The nukes were a costly waste of human life, all to demonstrate a weapon after the US refused to back off from the war without a devastating win.

For the latter, quite probable. Though it also started the nuclear arms race between the two and brought us near to extinction (I think we've all heard the story of that one guy on a Russian sub that refused to launch nukes when their system had unknowingly malfunctioned). Which brings us back to the current situation of Trump wanting even more of these things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 853
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For one thing, anyone who's password is.... 'password' is just an idiot. Regardless I don't give a stuff if Russia is behind it or not (and given that no evidence has been produced, one has to wo

Posted Images

24 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

I don't want to go digging for this list, but CNN is more interested in pedaling propaganda than news, so CNN getting the boot shouldn't be a shocker to anyone.

BBC getting uninvited shouldn't come as a surprise because... well... it's the British Broadcasting Corporation.  So unless there's another international news organization in the room, that falls in line with America First.  That one I scratch my head on, but then again, I do see the logic there.

The others are so far to the left that they tend to print first and verify later, often printing articles so erroneous bad about conservatives or so falsely glowingly positive about liberals that it's quite arguable that they're really propaganda sites, and not news agencies.

And if you're going to call BuzzFeed and Politico news sites, then I've got a bridge near TA to sell you....

Because Fox News and Breitbart are the paragons of honest media

Hell even Bret Baier of Fox News complained about this

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

World War II was a direct result of the sanctions placed against Germany at the end of World War I.  From what I recall of my Dad talking about asking the Germans about pre-World War II Germany when he was stationed over there in the early 80's, he did point out that the Germans are tremendously proud of their family businesses that have been in their families for generations, and how the Jews normally do business coupled with the Great Depression had caused many Germans to lose their family businesses - which basically set the stage for Hitler to come in with the Nazis, blame the Jews, and then commit war crimes on the scale the West has never seen before or since.  What I do wonder is what exactly caused the Germans to fall in with the Nazis, as there's a lot more to that than what we were taught in school.1

The sad part of it is without guns to oppose the SS, it could be argued that the average German citizens were also victims of the Nazis - albeit not nearly to the scale of the Jews and other groups on Hitler's exterminate list.

That also raises the question of whether WW1 would've happened with a United Empire. In fact, would most nations exist as they do now? After all, the UK had abolished slavery long before the US, so would the US Civil War have ever happened under a UE rule? Speculative history always does throw up a lot of interesting scenarios.

29 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

IIRC, it has to do with the Russians seizing the Korean parts of the projects ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program ) and then using that to fill in their gaps.  From what I recall looking into this years ago, it gave the Russians a tremendous leap forward as I don't believe they were anywhere near to where the US, Japanese, and Germans were at with progress circa World War II.

See, I can only find mention of the Japs and their uranium mining and refining activities, but not about the actual nuclear programs that were on the mainland. There is that Snell story that apparently Japan did have a nuke before the end, but there was nothing to back up the claims.

29 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

I think a huge part of that was the US wanting it's pound of flesh after Pearl Harbor had happened - especially since that completely wrecked the US Pacific Fleet.

I'm of the same opinion.

29 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

The big difference, though, is that there's a metric asston of regulations on the damned things, and quite a few facilities around the country dedicated to making sure they work and they're in stable condition in storage.

We can only hope those regulations stay intact and put Trump off his plans. He was supposed to be making better relations with Russia, not setting the stage for Cold War 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/02/2017 at 6:48 AM, Doro said:

Exactly. And why should one nation be entrusted with threatening the entire world into nuclear submission with enough nukes to destroy the planet ten times over? Especially when that same country is the only fucking one to have actually used nukes on another nation.

More than one nation already has that capability. And they've had that capability for over 60 years. Thank goodness one of those nations is mostly free and is not prone to threatening the entire world into nuclear submission. Can you imagine what the world would be like if only the USSR had had nukes for the past 70 years, comrade?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FundinStrongarm said:

More than one nation already has that capability. And they've had that capability for over 60 years. Thank goodness one of those nations is mostly free and is not prone to threatening the entire world into nuclear submission. Can you imagine what the world would be like if only the USSR had had nukes for the past 70 years, comrade?

More than one nation is my whole point. A world that's dominated by one nation isn't a free world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doro said:

More than one nation is my whole point. A world that's dominated by one nation isn't a free world.

It could be free very easily. I'd pick any nation in the Anglosphere to have more nukes than all others combined and feel perfectly comfortable about it.

I guess it depends on what you mean by dominated though. If they dominate by conquering others and oppression, yeah probably not a free world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Maybe not everything, but since Rome, there's almost always been a nation or a person (like the Pope), that's had pretty huge political sway over large chunks of land.

Except there have been many empires since then that the Pope had no influence over (the Mongolian Empire springs to mind, or Ming China, or the Ottoman Empire). In fact, the Holy Roman Empire (as distinct from the Roman Empire) was a fairly small empire, all things considered.

Quote

With the coporitization of everything, it's actually causing more homogenization amongst the cultures as the American mega corps (like McDonald's, Walmart, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc) tend to use English once you get high enough in the regional chain as the de facto language, and most everything gets converted over to USD because that's what just makes more sense for the Americans at the top to understand.  They also tend to export a subset of American values within the international corporation culture that tends to best fit with the mission of that corporation.

You're confusing economic globalisation with cultural globalisation. With the former, it's just about products and services moving between borders. With the latter, it's actually adopting a shared culture, which is fortunately not there yet (though I can see cities slowly getting there). It's why nations still have their own cinema companies (and why the US has to keep trying to make re-makes of those films, which in turn often flop), publishers, TV channels, media, etc.. The internet will probably have a larger hand in homogenising culture than exporting will (because the divine memes transcend all, praise Kek).

Regarding American companies, it's not quite as simple as exporting, either. Every single service and product has to be tailor made for the nation being targeted. Putting a US McDonald's in the middle of China doesn't work, so it's all been altered (Japanese McDonald's, where they're polite, well-presented, and fucking bow at you, compared to here where a grumpy spotty teen just chucks the stuff on a tray or in a bag, you can see the cultural differences). Along with values, too, since they know natives expect different things. Each nation differs enough to require custom approaches to selling overseas, which is economic globalisation rather than cultural globalisation.

However, I think you have a slight bit of tunnel-vision about how much influence the US has (because, obviously, you're surrounded by it yourself), but ignoring the many Asian companies (like Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, Meiji, Toei Animation, Studio Ghibli, and a whole host of Korea beauty companies) that are also spread globally. Even European companies, like Nestle, L'Oreal, Unilever or BMW. Nations often consume products world-wide, and the US is just one of many other players in that.

Quote

It's also interesting to think of things in a cultural sense, because there is quite literally a cultural war being fought in the US, and you can see a lot of the fallout of it with all the stuff that has happened to Trump, and more recently, Milo Yiannopolous.

That would be political, surely (I smiled at the idea that a yank sees anything as culture because they haven't actually got one ;))? I know there's a lot of overlap, but is it a clash of two different cultures (like foreigners vs natives usually is) or is it a clash of political beliefs which will in turn shape the future culture (like protests and demonstrations)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Doro said:

That would be political, surely (I smiled at the idea that a yank sees anything as culture  because they haven't actually got one ;))? I know there's a lot of overlap, but is it a clash of two different cultures (like foreigners vs natives usually is) or is it a clash of political beliefs which will in turn shape the future culture (like protests and demonstrations)?

Yeah that's an American thing, Culture War I believe is quite a common term over there to describe a clash of political values.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, cossieuk said:

It seems like Russia is going to follow Trump's administration like a bad smell

And it seems Obama is responsible for leaving this information as a poison pill for Trump by spreading the info as far and wide as possible prior to inauguration. I hope it can be proven and tracked all the way to Obama but his "Consigliere" (read "The Godfather") would have to turn over... or perhaps he laid out his plans in an email to Hillary? hehe

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Edit: Doah... I had read Almagnus post earlier but before he had added his own edit and link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Democrats did or did not do, doesnt change what Jeff Sessions did.

Also the hypocrisy of Pence is just laughable, he had a go at Clinton over her private email server while he was also using one, that was hacked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

What the Democrats did or did not do, doesnt change what Jeff Sessions did.

Also the hypocrisy of Pence is just laughable, he had a go at Clinton over her private email server while he was also using one, that was hacked.

Pence was Governor of Indiana... Clinton was Secretary of State and former First Lady... see any difference as might relate to National Security issues?

Step up your game cossie. :P 

Those dang Rooskies dun gone and hacked the Indy 500 emails!!!111!!!! Nuke the pinko bastards!

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

Pence was Governor of Indiana... Clinton was Secretary of State and former First Lady... see any difference as might relate to National Security issues?

Step up your game cossie. :P 

Those dang Rooskies dun gone and hacked the Indy 500 emails!!!111!!!! Nuke the pinko bastards!

Is/was it illegal for the Indiana governor to use a private email server?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

Pence was Governor of Indiana... Clinton was Secretary of State and former First Lady... see any difference as might relate to National Security issues?

Step up your game cossie. :P 

Those dang Rooskies dun gone and hacked the Indy 500 emails!!!111!!!! Nuke the pinko bastards!

Just because she was in a position of more responsibility does not mean he is not a hypocrite.  He did the same thing he called Clinton out for.  End of story.  You can try and defend him all you want, but he is a hypocrite.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Just because she was in a position of more responsibility does not mean he is not a hypocrite.  He did the same thing he called Clinton out for.  End of story.  You can try and defend him all you want, but he is a hypocrite.  

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Doro said:

Agreed.

Why? As has been pointed out, there's a pretty big fucking difference between the security of emails for the Secretary of State of the United States and some midwest Governor that anyone outside of Indiana probably would never heard of.  

I shouldn't have to point this out, but the two massive differences are.  One - As Governor of Indiana, he didn't handle any classified material (unlike the Secretary of State).  Two - Under Indiana law it was not illegal for him to do so (unlike the Secretary of State). 

Unless the supposition here is that no one who's had a private email server is allowed to criticise Hillary.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Just because she was in a position of more responsibility does not mean he is not a hypocrite.  He did the same thing he called Clinton out for.  End of story.  You can try and defend him all you want, but he is a hypocrite.  

 

24 minutes ago, Doro said:

Agreed.

Y'all have changed my mind.

Exposure of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, military... intelligence is exactly the same as exposure of Indiana National Guard deployments. Good thing Hillary deleted those 30,000 cake recipes or the Rooskies would have those as well!

Damn you Pence!

3 minutes ago, JRonnie said:

Why? As has been pointed out, there's a pretty big fucking difference between the security of emails for the Secretary of State of the United States and some midwest Governor that anyone outside of Indiana probably would never heard of.  

I shouldn't have to point this out, but the two massive differences are.  One - As Governor of Indiana, he didn't handle any classified material (unlike the Secretary of State).  Two - Under Indiana law it was not illegal for him to do so (unlike the Secretary of State). 

Unless the supposition here is that no one who's had a private email server is allowed to criticise Hillary.....

Bingo! Evil bastards and their email vulnerabilities!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

 

The real big difference is security clearance, as I would highly doubt that the governor of Indiana would have access to secret or top secret information as most of that info is on a need to know basis, and I seriously doubt most of the governors would need to know any of it.

He didn't.

Quote

The Vice-President's spokesman, Marc Lotter, called the comparison "absurd" because Mrs Clinton had set up a private server in her home at the start of her tenure at the State Department and, unlike Mrs Clinton, Mr Pence did not handle any classified material as Indiana's governor.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Let's put it this way: Any of us that are using webased email are effectively using a private email server that can (and most have) been hacked, so following the logic upthread, none of us should be criticizing HRC about her stupidity with her email server, because we could have leaked classified information.

The entire argument's a load of bullshit.

The real big difference is security clearance, as I would highly doubt that the governor of Indiana would have access to secret or top secret information as most of that info is on a need to know basis, and I seriously doubt most of the governors would need to know any of it.

Non of the emails relating to my job are on a private server belonging to AOL.  Who the hell is still using AOL anyway


Some of the emails are not being released to the public because they contain confidential information including some relating to homeland security.  So here is information that has some level of secrecy to it.

1 minute ago, JRonnie said:

The Vice-President's spokesman, Marc Lotter, called the comparison "absurd" because Mrs Clinton had set up a private server in her home at the start of her tenure at the State Department and, unlike Mrs Clinton, Mr Pence did not handle any classified material as Indiana's governor.

They why is the current governor of Indiana saying some of the emails have confidential information in them.  Some of which relates to Homeland Security.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Let's put it this way: Any of us that are using webased email are effectively using a private email server that can (and most have) been hacked, so following the logic upthread, none of us should be criticizing HRC about her stupidity with her email server, because we could have leaked classified information.

The entire argument's a load of bullshit.

The real big difference is security clearance, as I would highly doubt that the governor of Indiana would have access to secret or top secret information as most of that info is on a need to know basis, and I seriously doubt most of the governors would need to know any of it.

Not quite. Whatever shit we have in our emails are entirely private and not governmental. So it's fine for us. But for actual public servants it's a different matter (regardless of the level of information handled).

44 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

Exposure of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, military... intelligence is exactly the same as exposure of Indiana National Guard deployments. Good thing Hillary deleted those 30,000 cake recipes or the Rooskies would have those as well!

Nobody here has said that. People have simply pointed out the hypocrisy of a government official using a private email server condemning another for doing the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...