what if nuclear power was not possible, and nuclaer weapons could not exist?

[muppet]

Originally posted by Exsanguination
If we didn't have nukes and biochemical weapons I'm not kidding when I say the USA would rule the world, entirely. No joke.

You are kidding!

The USA is a democracy. It's people have a voice. It's people are not evil. In reality the USA will defend itself valiantly, and will prevent another from ruling the world. As a democracy, it is incapable of militarily 'ruling' the world.

It has nothing to do with hardware, technology, or production.

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by muppet


You are kidding!

The USA is a democracy. It's people have a voice. It's people are not evil. In reality the USA will defend itself valiantly, and will prevent another from ruling the world. As a democracy, it is incapable of militarily 'ruling' the world.

It has nothing to do with hardware, technology, or production.

The USA is NOT a democracy, in fact, it is so far from a democracy it would be more suitable to call it a monarchy (or as my friend once put it, a 'benevolent monarchy' ). I won't get into the specifics of it and all that, cause I'm already writing a paper on it that I was forced to condense ( :aargh3: ).

America's whole philosophy is to rule the world. Few countries dare stick up to the US (of those who do notables are Russia and Germany), and even those only do so because they know how afraid everyone is of nukes and biochemical agents. I don't mean to offend you, but do a little in depth research and some intuitive thought before spewing out such propaganda (that is EXACTLY what Bush wants you to think America is). And by research I don't mean CNN or MSNBC.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Exsanguination


The USA is NOT a democracy, in fact, it is so far from a democracy it would be more suitable to call it a monarchy (or as my friend once put it, a 'benevolent monarchy' ). I won't get into the specifics of it and all that, cause I'm already writing a paper on it that I was forced to condense ( :aargh3: ).

America's whole philosophy is to rule the world. Few countries dare stick up to the US (of those who do notables are Russia and Germany), and even those only do so because they know how afraid everyone is of nukes and biochemical agents. I don't mean to offend you, but do a little in depth research and some intuitive thought before spewing out such propaganda (that is EXACTLY what Bush wants you to think America is). And by research I don't mean CNN or MSNBC.

I smell lots of propaganda, and it's mostly coming from you.

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by Switch625


I smell lots of propaganda, and it's mostly coming from you.

It depends on what you define as propaganda. According to you, propaganda is anything that tries to persuade one to believe something else.

Or what I alluded to, meaning trying to persuade people to follow your hopeless and/or corrupt cause without telling them the real truth, and instead making up fairy tales about how great you'll be and we all will be if we do this and that. (re: America)

And for the record, I live in America so I'm not dreaming. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[insanewarior]

Originally posted by Exsanguination


The USA is NOT a democracy, in fact, it is so far from a democracy it would be more suitable to call it a monarchy (or as my friend once put it, a 'benevolent monarchy' ). I won't get into the specifics of it and all that, cause I'm already writing a paper on it that I was forced to condense ( :aargh3: ).

America's whole philosophy is to rule the world. Few countries dare stick up to the US (of those who do notables are Russia and Germany), and even those only do so because they know how afraid everyone is of nukes and biochemical agents. I don't mean to offend you, but do a little in depth research and some intuitive thought before spewing out such propaganda (that is EXACTLY what Bush wants you to think America is). And by research I don't mean CNN or MSNBC.

The US can be qualified as a "corporate democracy". Even if the term is not coined by historians and political analists it seems to fit the current state policy. Indeed, verious wealthy groups of interests can can lobby politicians (and sometimes "donate" money) to pass bills. America has prooved, especially in the last few years that it will protect it's economic (or corporate) interests at all costs, not weary to step on someonelse's toes...

 

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by stalin006
yes u will think it is mostly about WW2, but WW2 was practilcy over anyways, so how would the cold war had been if there were no nukes and ICBMs? would the Warsaw pact had started a war W Nato? well it would had been easier since a conventional war would be more acceptable tahn nuclear radiation killing everyone.......or would chemical and biological weapons had been taken to the same point as nukes?

edit: no this thread is not about why nuclear weapons would had never worked scientifictly..........thdis is about what wuld it had happened if ICBMs had no big role in the cold war.

I probably wouldn't exist as without the nukes my grampa would have invaded the Japanese home islands.

Russia and the US wouldn't have broken into war of any kind. There would have been no USSR superpower anyway as it was entirely propped up on it's nukes.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by insanewarior


The US can be qualified as a "corporate democracy". Even if the term is not coined by historians and political analists it seems to fit the current state policy. Indeed, verious wealthy groups of interests can can lobby politicians (and sometimes "donate" money) to pass bills. America has prooved, especially in the last few years that it will protect it's economic (or corporate) interests at all costs, not weary to step on someonelse's toes...

Don't the academic 'experts' refer to the US as a 'capital' democracy - as opposed to a 'social' democracy?

Not that I know what the difference is, but I thought that I've heard that before.

 

[ViceRoy]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Russia and the US wouldn't have broken into war of any kind. There would have been no USSR superpower anyway as it was entirely propped up on it's nukes.

Soviet Union had amazing arsenal of conventional weapons when compared to the weapons in Europe. Without the nuclear weapons it might have been that Europe would have been taken over by in couple of weeks.

Of course I'm not saying that Soviet Union would have done it but...

Whole question of this thread is rather funny as we wouldn't really exist without nuclear power...And I think the lesson that use of nuclear weapons gave should be learned by all but it seems it's still not so...people forget so easily.

 

[Zarn]

1. The Soviet Union was devastated by WW2 and couldn't fight, because they lacked alot of weapons (they did have alot but not enough) and men.
2. Europe had some convential weapons that go delay the Soviet Union until the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc... could come in and help.
I don't think the Soviet Union would invade.

 

[ViceRoy]

Originally posted by Zarn
1. The Soviet Union was devastated by WW2 and couldn't fight, because they lacked alot of weapons (they did have alot but not enough) and men.

That was the situation right after the war but after some time when warsaw-pact was made...Soviet Union had devastating arsenal of conventional weapons.

 

[stalin006]

yeah, the soviest had plenty of tanks, millions of them!

 

[Zarn]

It had to be a least 15 years after WW2 for the Soviet Union to be able to fight Europe. 1945 + 15 = 1960. Meanwhile all the allies would be pumping up as well. With no nukes, they would have made more conventional weapons to prevent warfare. The 15 years is a almost treated as a fact according to alot of people.

 

[stalin006]

yeah, but they had so much its just amasing ot see the parades

 

[ViceRoy]

Originally posted by Zarn
It had to be a least 15 years after WW2 for the Soviet Union to be able to fight Europe. 1945 + 15 = 1960. Meanwhile all the allies would be pumping up as well. With no nukes, they would have made more conventional weapons to prevent warfare. The 15 years is a almost treated as a fact according to alot of people.

As said in the first message this whole question is so mainly meanless..."no nukes" would have meant that whole history would have changed.

You are right that it would have been different kind of technological equipment race then but do you think USSR would have been the loser automatically? I think not. USSR lost lot of money to produce all those nuclear weapons and remember that Europe wasn't really healthy after WW2 either. USSR got it industry pumping during the war and I think 15 is maybe too much when direct attack is considered.
Remember also that NATO was all the time ready to fight against conventional weapons and still the odds were greatly for USSR. In fact the threat was so great US would have been ready to use nuclear weapons in smaller scale in Europe against USSR as there wouldn't been any other chance to stop USSR attack with conventional weapons.

BTW...
I have known that catholics go to heaven but Republicans as well?!!!! REALLY?
Geez...I think I rather choose go to hell.

 

[Zarn]

Yes, I see your point, but I don't think the U.S.S.R. would risk it. I don't even think the Soviets would want to take Europe, because it would cause it more problems. It only 'took' Eastern Europe to prevent an invasion. I sound like a left-winger, but that's what history tells me would have happened. This is something that we won't know, unless we had a time machine and screwed everthing up.

 

[SKILORD]

Also in addition:

Without Radiation there would be no Carbon dating and Creationism would be far more dominant if people still bothered with Evolution.

 

[SKILORD]

I am the Catholic Republican.

at least ur a republican but i guess we can't all be perfect.

 

[ViceRoy]

Originally posted by Zarn
I don't think the U.S.S.R. would risk it. I don't even think the Soviets would want to take Europe, because it would cause it more problems. It only 'took' Eastern Europe to prevent an invasion.

It's purely speculation to say what Soviet Union would have done really. And you don't need to be left winger to admit that...It just that in west Soviet Union was seen as something that is threatening everything in west and it was assumed to want to take over rest of the Europe overnight if allowed...

 

[MWA]

The cold war would have been fought in conventional ways, instead of being a psycological war.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Chemical and biological weapons would have assumed a greater profile and importance, with the US lead in strategic bombing resulting in more work done on these type of warheads.