Americans don't understand Scots law; Compassion.

[Ifreann]

At which point every other nuclear power would nuke America.

Not if it were a British first strike.

I suppose it depends on why Britain is nuking America.

Still won't happen. The British launched first- America is alright to retaliate, although I'm afraid that Russia might think it's heading for them...

In fairness, America is never going to nuke Britain any way, certainly not over the Lockerbie bombing.

---

Do you even know what 'strawman' means? I'm beginning to think you don't, because there isn't one here.

It is because of who you made that "backwards" statement too.

Well? Aren't you going to tell me whose argument I've been misrepresenting? Because I don't think I've misrepresented anything, but apparently you know better. Do enlighten us.

You misrepresented my statement.

No, I didn't.

[DaWoad]

True but Canada only provides 9% of our Oil. So Oil really isn't a problem if it is rationed. As for we put limits and we're good. Plutonium. I really don't see any civilian use.

Medical isotopes amongst others but I was more thinking about nuclear reactors, that's just a side point though.

Err and I think it's closer to 17%, at least it was 5 years ago (things may have changed)
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0329-lovins.html

[The chrisman union]

Going to war with Scotland/the UK over a single man being let free who will probably be dead soon is just nuts. It wouldn't happen! By letting this man die peacefully with his family unlike his victims, we are showing we are better than him. We are taking the moral high ground by not stooping to his level. And if the rest of the world cannot understand this, compassion truly is dead.

As for a war between Scotland and America, America would not last 5 seconds. Ever seen Braveheart? That's us on a good day, laddy!

[Person012345]

Bring it.

You're playing with fire there, boy. The UK wouldn't last three months in a war against America.

Well it could because we would have to deal with Canada and Australia first both being closer than the British Isles. That would take at least a month possibly two then we could focus on the British Isles.

Also, Nukes.

Although I'm not entirely sure we'd actually use them...

If Britian fired Nukes at the US it would take hundreds to destroy us. We fire One or Two 10 MT ones and the British Isles are Irradiated.

We have hundreds. And seriously, you think the U.S. would risk a war with the threat of having new york, DC, [insert other important cities here] completely annihalated? We don't need to destroy your entire country for a nuclear strike to be effective. Hit A big city, and threaten to hit another unless you fuck off. And threaten full retaliation if you try using nukes in response. Since our government would have nothing to lose if you were invading anyway.

[Wa no Kuni]

Going to war with Scotland/the UK over a single man being let free who will probably be dead soon is just nuts. It wouldn't happen! By letting this man die peacefully with his family unlike his victims, we are showing we are better than him. We are taking the moral high ground by not stooping to his level. And if the rest of the world cannot understand this, compassion truly is dead.

As for a war between Scotland and America, America would not last 5 seconds. Ever seen Braveheart? That's us on a good day, laddy!

Don't say that morality bullshit. When we try to show we are morally superior, we will lose everytime.

[Caninope]

In fairness, America is never going to nuke Britain any way, certainly not over the Lockerbie bombing.

Agreed.

Do you even know what 'strawman' means? I'm beginning to think you don't, because there isn't one here.

It is because of who you made that "backwards" statement too.

Well? Aren't you going to tell me whose argument I've been misrepresenting? Because I don't think I've misrepresented anything, but apparently you know better. Do enlighten us.

You misrepresented my statement.

No, I didn't.

You might not have meant to, but it sure came out that way.

[Greater Americania]

We have hundreds. And seriously, you think the U.S. would risk a war with the threat of having new york, DC, [insert other important cities here] completely annihalated? We don't need to destroy your entire country for a nuclear strike to be effective. Hit A big city, and threaten to hit another unless you fuck off. And threaten full retaliation if you try using nukes in response. Since our government would have nothing to lose if you were invading anyway.

The survival of your nation might be something to lose, given that if you were to start a nuclear war with America, you can kiss life good bye.

[Caninope]

Bring it.

You're playing with fire there, boy. The UK wouldn't last three months in a war against America.

Well it could because we would have to deal with Canada and Australia first both being closer than the British Isles. That would take at least a month possibly two then we could focus on the British Isles.

Also, Nukes.

Although I'm not entirely sure we'd actually use them...

If Britian fired Nukes at the US it would take hundreds to destroy us. We fire One or Two 10 MT ones and the British Isles are Irradiated.

We have hundreds. And seriously, you think the U.S. would risk a war with the threat of having new york, DC, [insert other important cities here] completely annihalated? We don't need to destroy your entire country for a nuclear strike to be effective. Hit A big city, and threaten to hit another unless you fuck off. And threaten full retaliation if you try using nukes in response. Since our government would have nothing to lose if you were invading anyway.

You have 160 operational warheads. We have over 5000.

[Ifreann]

Going to war with Scotland/the UK over a single man being let free who will probably be dead soon is just nuts. It wouldn't happen! By letting this man die peacefully with his family unlike his victims, we are showing we are better than him. We are taking the moral high ground by not stooping to his level. And if the rest of the world cannot understand this, compassion truly is dead.

As for a war between Scotland and America, America would not last 5 seconds. Ever seen Braveheart? That's us on a good day, laddy!

Don't say that morality bullshit. When we try to show we are morally superior, we will lose everytime.

You can tell because Scotland is overrun with Libyan terrorists.

[Ifreann]

We have hundreds. And seriously, you think the U.S. would risk a war with the threat of having new york, DC, [insert other important cities here] completely annihalated? We don't need to destroy your entire country for a nuclear strike to be effective. Hit A big city, and threaten to hit another unless you fuck off. And threaten full retaliation if you try using nukes in response. Since our government would have nothing to lose if you were invading anyway.

The survival of your nation might be something to lose, given that if you were to start a nuclear war with America, you can kiss life good bye.

As can everyone else on Earth.

[Person012345]

We have hundreds. And seriously, you think the U.S. would risk a war with the threat of having new york, DC, [insert other important cities here] completely annihalated? We don't need to destroy your entire country for a nuclear strike to be effective. Hit A big city, and threaten to hit another unless you fuck off. And threaten full retaliation if you try using nukes in response. Since our government would have nothing to lose if you were invading anyway.

The survival of your nation might be something to lose, given that if you were to start a nuclear war with America, you can kiss life good bye.

Except the government isn't going to survive anyway if you invade. And they control the weapons.

[Wa no Kuni]

Going to war with Scotland/the UK over a single man being let free who will probably be dead soon is just nuts. It wouldn't happen! By letting this man die peacefully with his family unlike his victims, we are showing we are better than him. We are taking the moral high ground by not stooping to his level. And if the rest of the world cannot understand this, compassion truly is dead.

As for a war between Scotland and America, America would not last 5 seconds. Ever seen Braveheart? That's us on a good day, laddy!

Don't say that morality bullshit. When we try to show we are morally superior, we will lose everytime.

You can tell because Scotland is overrun with Libyan terrorists.

Well I really didn't specify what I meant. I just meant that in a broad sense.

Seriously, trying to show you are morally superior in war will make you lose everytime because the enemy doesn't care about looking morally superior.

[Greater Americania]

=
Except the government isn't going to survive anyway if you invade. And they control the weapons.

1. You're assuming that the government cares only about itself.

2. The government as an entity might not survive, but the individuals running the government could.

[Person012345]

Bring it.

You're playing with fire there, boy. The UK wouldn't last three months in a war against America.

Well it could because we would have to deal with Canada and Australia first both being closer than the British Isles. That would take at least a month possibly two then we could focus on the British Isles.

Also, Nukes.

Although I'm not entirely sure we'd actually use them...

If Britian fired Nukes at the US it would take hundreds to destroy us. We fire One or Two 10 MT ones and the British Isles are Irradiated.

We have hundreds. And seriously, you think the U.S. would risk a war with the threat of having new york, DC, [insert other important cities here] completely annihalated? We don't need to destroy your entire country for a nuclear strike to be effective. Hit A big city, and threaten to hit another unless you fuck off. And threaten full retaliation if you try using nukes in response. Since our government would have nothing to lose if you were invading anyway.

You have 160 operational warheads. We have over 5000.

And? As already pointed out, firing 5000 at us would be massive overkill. It would also piss off Europe in the extreme, as they would not take kindly to having nuclear fallout wafting all over. Hundreds is plenty enough to fuck up america. Seriously, you probably don't even have 160 targets we'd want to hit.

[Person012345]

=
Except the government isn't going to survive anyway if you invade. And they control the weapons.

1. You're assuming that the government cares only about itself.

No I'm not, which is why I said originally that I wasn't sure we'd use them.

[Caninope]

Bring it.

You're playing with fire there, boy. The UK wouldn't last three months in a war against America.

Well it could because we would have to deal with Canada and Australia first both being closer than the British Isles. That would take at least a month possibly two then we could focus on the British Isles.

Also, Nukes.

Although I'm not entirely sure we'd actually use them...

If Britian fired Nukes at the US it would take hundreds to destroy us. We fire One or Two 10 MT ones and the British Isles are Irradiated.

We have hundreds. And seriously, you think the U.S. would risk a war with the threat of having new york, DC, [insert other important cities here] completely annihalated? We don't need to destroy your entire country for a nuclear strike to be effective. Hit A big city, and threaten to hit another unless you fuck off. And threaten full retaliation if you try using nukes in response. Since our government would have nothing to lose if you were invading anyway.

You have 160 operational warheads. We have over 5000.

And? As already pointed out, firing 5000 at us would be massive overkill. It would also piss off Europe in the extreme, as they would not take kindly to having nuclear radiation wafting all over europe. Hundreds is plenty enough to fuck up america. Seriously, you probably don't even have 160 targets we'd want to hit.

Except you don't have hundreds. You have 160. Besides, fire 160, and you get 200 back. A huge deterrent from the UK launching a first strike.

[Wa no Kuni]

Bring it.

You're playing with fire there, boy. The UK wouldn't last three months in a war against America.

Well it could because we would have to deal with Canada and Australia first both being closer than the British Isles. That would take at least a month possibly two then we could focus on the British Isles.

Also, Nukes.

Although I'm not entirely sure we'd actually use them...

If Britian fired Nukes at the US it would take hundreds to destroy us. We fire One or Two 10 MT ones and the British Isles are Irradiated.

We have hundreds. And seriously, you think the U.S. would risk a war with the threat of having new york, DC, [insert other important cities here] completely annihalated? We don't need to destroy your entire country for a nuclear strike to be effective. Hit A big city, and threaten to hit another unless you fuck off. And threaten full retaliation if you try using nukes in response. Since our government would have nothing to lose if you were invading anyway.

You have 160 operational warheads. We have over 5000.

And? As already pointed out, firing 5000 at us would be massive overkill. It would also piss off Europe in the extreme, as they would not take kindly to having nuclear radiation wafting all over europe. Hundreds is plenty enough to fuck up america. Seriously, you probably don't even have 160 targets we'd want to hit.

Except you don't have hundreds. You have 160. Besides, fire 160, and you get 200 back. A huge deterrent from the UK launching a first strike.

It would only take 1 to stop France.

[Person012345]

Except you don't have hundreds. You have 160. Besides, fire 160, and you get 200 back. A huge deterrent from the UK launching a first strike.

Why is it? The government is to be destroyed anyway, so why is it's destruction a deterrent? Again, europe would not allow the U.S. to just do that. No matter what the reason, they don't want fallout all over the place.

[Ifreann]

Going to war with Scotland/the UK over a single man being let free who will probably be dead soon is just nuts. It wouldn't happen! By letting this man die peacefully with his family unlike his victims, we are showing we are better than him. We are taking the moral high ground by not stooping to his level. And if the rest of the world cannot understand this, compassion truly is dead.

As for a war between Scotland and America, America would not last 5 seconds. Ever seen Braveheart? That's us on a good day, laddy!

Don't say that morality bullshit. When we try to show we are morally superior, we will lose everytime.

You can tell because Scotland is overrun with Libyan terrorists.

Well I really didn't specify what I meant. I just meant that in a broad sense.

Seriously, trying to show you are morally superior in war will make you lose everytime because the enemy doesn't care about looking morally superior.

There's more to war than who uses inhumane tactics/ordinance/whatever. Holding the moral high ground doesn't guarantee defeat.

[Wa no Kuni]

Going to war with Scotland/the UK over a single man being let free who will probably be dead soon is just nuts. It wouldn't happen! By letting this man die peacefully with his family unlike his victims, we are showing we are better than him. We are taking the moral high ground by not stooping to his level. And if the rest of the world cannot understand this, compassion truly is dead.

As for a war between Scotland and America, America would not last 5 seconds. Ever seen Braveheart? That's us on a good day, laddy!

Don't say that morality bullshit. When we try to show we are morally superior, we will lose everytime.

You can tell because Scotland is overrun with Libyan terrorists.

Well I really didn't specify what I meant. I just meant that in a broad sense.

Seriously, trying to show you are morally superior in war will make you lose everytime because the enemy doesn't care about looking morally superior.

There's more to war than who uses inhumane tactics/ordinance/whatever. Holding the moral high ground doesn't guarantee defeat.

It does if you refuse to let the soldiers do their job.

[Caninope]

Except you don't have hundreds. You have 160. Besides, fire 160, and you get 200 back. A huge deterrent from the UK launching a first strike.

Why is it? The government is to be destroyed anyway, so why is it's destruction a deterrent? Again, europe would not allow the U.S. to just do that. No matter what the reason, they don't want fallout all over the place.

Because they also face the imminent destruction of thousands, possibly millions of people.

[Avenio]

Going to war with Scotland/the UK over a single man being let free who will probably be dead soon is just nuts. It wouldn't happen! By letting this man die peacefully with his family unlike his victims, we are showing we are better than him. We are taking the moral high ground by not stooping to his level. And if the rest of the world cannot understand this, compassion truly is dead.

As for a war between Scotland and America, America would not last 5 seconds. Ever seen Braveheart? That's us on a good day, laddy!

Don't say that morality bullshit. When we try to show we are morally superior, we will lose everytime.

You can tell because Scotland is overrun with Libyan terrorists.

Well I really didn't specify what I meant. I just meant that in a broad sense.

Serioudly, trying to show you are morally superior in war, will make you lose everytime because the enemy doesn't care about looking morally superior.

The interesting thing is that the 'enemy' most people refer to thrive on the fact that the Western nations are acting like militaristic bullies. Every time a US drone attack hits a Pakistani village and kills two dozen people, the Taliban approach the survivors and say; "See!? We told you they were evil! Join us and we'll stop their attacks on you." and gather twenty recruits. This is what's happening all over Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East; young people, angry at the loss of their friends, family or property, join the Taliban as a way to protect the land they love, and spread Taliban propaganda to everyone they know, furthering anti-American sentiment.

[Person012345]

Except you don't have hundreds. You have 160. Besides, fire 160, and you get 200 back. A huge deterrent from the UK launching a first strike.

Why is it? The government is to be destroyed anyway, so why is it's destruction a deterrent? Again, europe would not allow the U.S. to just do that. No matter what the reason, they don't want fallout all over the place.

Because they also face the imminent destruction of thousands, possibly millions of people.

Why do they care? Those people aren't going to be able to vote for them any more anyway? Government doesn't care about people.

Now, I did say though, I'm not sure we'd use them. I don't know if we would. Because the government has a human element.

Also, you didn't address what else I said. We don't fire 160 at you. We fire 1, at say Boston. We threaten to fire off our complete arsenal if you nuke back. Europe will also be putting you under huge pressure not to fire back. We then threaten to wipe out cities one by one unless you gtfo our country. What would the U.S. do?

[Marcurix]

True but Canada only provides 9% of our Oil. So Oil really isn't a problem if it is rationed. As for we put limits and we're good. Plutonium. I really don't see any civilian use.

Medical isotopes amongst others but I was more thinking about nuclear reactors, that's just a side point though.

Err and I think it's closer to 17%, at least it was 5 years ago (things may have changed)
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0329-lovins.html

I think its closer to 20% now, well all i know is Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the US. Though i really think your underestimating the damage the loss of even 9% of oil would do to the US. Really if there was a war, which is damn near impossible, the US would loose at least two of its main suppliers (Canada and the UK) of oil.

[Ifreann]

Going to war with Scotland/the UK over a single man being let free who will probably be dead soon is just nuts. It wouldn't happen! By letting this man die peacefully with his family unlike his victims, we are showing we are better than him. We are taking the moral high ground by not stooping to his level. And if the rest of the world cannot understand this, compassion truly is dead.

As for a war between Scotland and America, America would not last 5 seconds. Ever seen Braveheart? That's us on a good day, laddy!

Don't say that morality bullshit. When we try to show we are morally superior, we will lose everytime.

You can tell because Scotland is overrun with Libyan terrorists.

Well I really didn't specify what I meant. I just meant that in a broad sense.

Seriously, trying to show you are morally superior in war will make you lose everytime because the enemy doesn't care about looking morally superior.

There's more to war than who uses inhumane tactics/ordinance/whatever. Holding the moral high ground doesn't guarantee defeat.

It does if you refuse to let the soldiers do their job.

Oh please . A soldier's job is to follow orders.