Originally Posted by WARmachine88

I just hope the Korea problem can be solved in peace. A war in Korea now will be 100 times worse than last time 50 years ago.

War is preferable to a bad peace
- Herodotous

I think Korea, Israel, etc. are good examples of this Roman maxim.

In roman time there is no nuclear weapon.

in today's world, at least a bad peace can ensure the survival of human race as a whole. A war in Korea may trigger a bigger **** that ends up in a nuclear winter (100 nuked cities are enough for a nuclear winter).

but bad peace is not necessarily good. over time, this bad peace could cause the troubled nations to hate each other even more. Look how bad it got between the US and the USSR during the cold war. there was no real war, as we think of it, yet the hatred grew and grew. the people of both nations are very very very very very lucky that we arent in a nuclear winter.

Originally Posted by hoohaa310

but bad peace is not necessarily good. over time, this bad peace could cause the troubled nations to hate each other even more. Look how bad it got between the US and the USSR during the cold war. there was no real war, as we think of it, yet the hatred grew and grew. the people of both nations are very very very very very lucky that we arent in a nuclear winter.

the peaceful ending of cold war is a miracle in my opinion cuz never in history rarely two confronted super powers do not fight each other over a period of 50 years.

and i think it is a symbol that humans may actually end the cycle of world wars because we realize another world war means the end of everybody.

I think that if there is a nuclear launch, it wont be on the scale of hundreds of nukes. Perhpas a few, launched in deparation. Everyone has nukes, but is too scared to actually use them for fear of retribution by other nuclear powers.

I think any more wars will be conventional with nukes launched as a last ditch effort to save a nation. (With the exclusion of tactical nukes)

not that many countries have nukes really, only israel, india, pakistan, france, uk, china, russia, and us.


mind you this link has some rude language, some very rude language.

its pretty funny though.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm/

I have a theory and it may not be right, but I just wanna share it.

you see if a nation got nuked with one bomb, ( like whole city gone and milliions died), this nation has a very very very high chance to revenge with nukes ( common sense, eye for eye , tooth for tooth), yet this nation does not want to be nuked again, so the only solution is to totallly destory its opponent so it will not have the nuclear capablity again.

that is why it is really hard to fight a so-called controlled nuke war.

that is most likely what would happen, unless, the people that fired the first nuke obliterate the country they were targeting, another entirely possible solution to a "bad peace".

to destroy a big power totally require perhaps more than 100 nukes (at least 3 nukes each for a possible launching site to dig deep enough to destory the missile in it).

100 nukes are enough for a nuke winter in theory.

Originally Posted by WARmachine88

In roman time there is no nuclear weapon.

in today's world, at least a bad peace can ensure the survival of human race as a whole. A war in Korea may trigger a bigger **** that ends up in a nuclear winter (100 nuked cities are enough for a nuclear winter).

That is exactly my point. They didn't have nukes 50 years ago when this war should have been won.