06 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterMy list of US wars was only from 1950 to our days. I chosed that period because this is the nuclear part of our history.
OK:
1434-1437, Engelbrektsson's Revolt, Sweden 1434-1437
1521-1523, Swedish War of Liberation
1534-1536, Conflict over Danish Throne
1554-1557 Swedish-Russian War
1563-1570, Swedish-Danish War . see also 1558-1582 Livonian War
1570-1595, Russo-Swedish War
1600-1611, Swedish-Polish War
1611-1613 Swedish-Danish War
1611-1617 Russo-Swedis 17-1918 Finnish Civil War; a Swedish Volunteer Regiment participated on the side of the Whites
Sweden didn't fight any war during these years.
Not a very impressive try.
Seriously, you are not against Sweden, der schwarze Ritter, you are against me. I have the guts to critisize your country, and I have the right to do so, we are both democraties with free of speach. And you critisize my country. Well, do so. But this thread is not about Swedens ambition to collect the worlds entire stock of nuclear weapons. We don't se ourselves as the leader of the world.
06 Jul 08
4 edits
I'm glad too. Nuclear weapons are such a potential problem that if it's not necessary we should keep them on our soil.
I wonder what the strategic purpose of having tactical nuclear weapons in the UK was. Those weapons are designed for blowing up armies and such...but the soil they're used on is really f***ed afterwards I am sure. I guess the idea was that they'd be used on the ocean or on enemy soil. What sort of technology did they have? What could they do?
Because using tactical nukes defensively is bad news for the defending country's landscape and citzenry.
The idea must have been so that they could be mobilized quickly and brought to bear in Eurasia. 😕
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaYes, therefore I said: "The whole of Europe should be a nuclear weapon free zone."
And you don't think they have their own nuclear weapons? 😉
Own nukes is bad as it is. Foreign ones is worse. Because they we cannot get rid of ourselves.
14 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungATY I am happy that you are glad but maybe its to earley to have that shindig you where planing for next week. Because if none of you have woken upp yet its not my problem. The Nukes are such a big problem that its unheard of.
I'm glad too. Nuclear weapons are such a potential problem that if it's not necessary we should keep them on our soil.
I wonder what the strategic purpose of having tactical nuclear weapons in the UK was. Those weapons are designed for blowing up armies and such...but the soil they're used on is really f***ed afterwards I am sure. I guess the id a must have been so that they could be mobilized quickly and brought to bear in Eurasia. 😕
Let me explain
Who do we acctuly know to have that wepon.
Most countrys has the tech for it and has it the only one we are not sure about and even if you don't agree with me is Israel. But they have spoken words so that its thought that they have, it´s not proven.
How said am I on? hey look at my name what do you think it stand for?
I am on humanaty´s side.
That line is blurry to see at times, trust me on that boys and girls.
And round this chat of with an idea: LOve your enamie as much as you self then maybe we have a shot of serviving this mess we have made. And for all humans give buch the sack.....now plz
ohh yeah I forgot lets bring out the peace pipe...
Or am I beeing to cynical?
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyMuch like many people in the US feel it is a good idea to carry a gun for protection I presume most countries in the world are be attempting to get the protection of nukes precisely because they feel the us "has the gonads"
And yet countries like Iran and North Korea don't think the US has the gonades to use nukes against them. Interesting, no? Perhaps they are not well versed in world history?