Quote:

---

Pinkerton said:
I would be interested to know it's location.

There are no guns in paradise, so I don't think so.

---

Quote:

---

A show of Force

---

Like this?

Quote:

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

---

A show of Force

---

Like this?

---

I don't get it. Is that you, Lunar, me and rgv? I know you're in it and myself but the rest I'm only guessing! I guess I'm number three, Icey wrote he was no 1 in a post somewhere and he wrote he was looking at me through the scope when I was batty, so he may be inside my brain as well. Lunar is the ringleader and you're the cardshark. RGV is a wildcard. The Dip??? FWG is not in it and definitely not MtG, no offence. Care to enlighten the retarded kid you like to mock in a horrible way? The stewdent feels ready.

Holy fuck this was a horrible time. But I came back for more...

My lifeforce and energizing mind (on a good day) is built for this show.

Quote:

---

Without violence we would live short lives and have no freedom.

---

Quote:

---

Rahz said:

Quote:

---

Without violence we would live short lives and have no freedom.

---

Because of violence?
Seems like people have different opinions on who the aggressor is.

---

Quote:

---

redgreenvines said:
a backhoe can move more dirt more masterfully than fireworks can.

---

Not as much fun though...

Quote:

---

redgreenvines said:
a backhoe can move more dirt more masterfully than fireworks can.

---

Quote:

---

Massive Retaliation

Massive Retaliation was an all-or-nothing strategy. It was the threat to turn the Soviet Union into a smoking, radiating ruin at the end of two hours. By making nuclear war too destructive to fight, by making the distinction between victor and loser in such a conflict increasingly meaningless, the deterrent strategy aimed at eliminating war itself. Furthermore, and more concretely Massive Retaliation meant the possible deterrence of an all-out attack. Massive Retaliation reflected a policy of "brinkmanship." The expectation was that by going to the "brink of war" the United States would be able to deter future Koreas.

To what extent was Massive Retaliation able to contain limited challenges? It turned out that the threat of Massive Retaliation could not prevent limited challenges. It was not an effective foreign policy tool to deal with everyday problems. Short of an ultimate provocation, the Soviet Union could raise tensions and challenge the U.S. as the Korean War already had shown and future crises involving Berlin would again prove. In other words, more limited responses were necessary to deal with less-than-total challenges.

The Soviet Union successfully tested American resolve several times. On 17 June 1953 it suppressed an anti-Communist revolt in East Berlin and in late 1956 it suppressed a national uprising in Hungary.

From Massive Retaliation to Flexible Response

A nuclear power in charge of an alliance has to deter the opponent and to reassure the allies. The alternative to reassuring U.S. allies would have been for Europeans to produce nuclear weapons themselves and create core deterrence themselves either on a national basis or in cooperation with other Europeans. It also would have meant that the Germans would have gotten a finger on the nuclear button

From the perspective of the United States, nuclear parity and territorial vulnerability required the adoption of a new strategy. The Kennedy administration accepted a new strategy, called Flexible Response.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/strategy-massive retaliation.htm

---