Nuclear Weapons

[Person012345]

If we (Pakistan) didn't get nukes, India would've massacred us. Our army, no matter how skilled, would be outnumbered.

Actually, you two are pretty much the only nations I'd say should maintain a nuclear weapon capability. It certainly stabalises the situation there imo.

They wouldn't be in that mess if they had dealt with aftermath of the British withdrawl reasonably. I don't see the point of Pakistan from a functional standpoint... it's reason d'etre is to provide representation for Muslims from India; but hundreds of millions of Muslims still live in India all those years after mass migrations and ethnic cleansing that happened soon after India gained independence... so surely that makes Pakistan's purpose... redundant? Seems like they could have made a hugely powerful world player if they didn't fragment like that. Imagine what they could have achieved if they didn't piss about with wars and a nuclear arms race against one another? Just a waste.

I still believe that india doesn't treat muslims that well. And you can argue that there is no point to any country. But they are independent countries. People like being in their own country. And I don't see the point of any war, but without nukes there will be conflict. I would prefer to see them working out their differences peacefully, and I believe the best, indeed probably the only, way for that to happen is if each side have their nuclear deterrence to prevent war.

[Riltonia]

America lost because the UK didn't help them in vietnam.

Aye, those pesky Brits, having a go at America again after 1784 and 1812...
Bad Lizzie! BAD!

We beat America in 1812.

Anyway, America has had limited military success without british help. Maybe the mexican war you won. And of course the civil war, but that was America vs America, so only America could have won, so it doesn't count.

Apart from that, they suck. They've always needed our help.

You are an extremely ignorant idiot. Let's think about who Saved your ass in WW2. And also not to mention We kicked your asses in the Revolutionary War when we had essentially pitchforks and you had tanks (for comparison reasons. I know tanks didn't exist then.). The UK is not superior and has never been. Ignorant idiot. Hell I think that the FRENCH are better then those unable to speak properly brits.

[Person012345]

America lost because the UK didn't help them in vietnam.

Aye, those pesky Brits, having a go at America again after 1784 and 1812...
Bad Lizzie! BAD!

We beat America in 1812.

Anyway, America has had limited military success without british help. Maybe the mexican war you won. And of course the civil war, but that was America vs America, so only America could have won, so it doesn't count.

Apart from that, they suck. They've always needed our help.

You are an extremely ignorant idiot. Let's think about who Saved your ass in WW2. And also not to mention We kicked your asses in the Revolutionary War when we had essentially pitchforks and you had tanks (for comparison reasons. I know tanks didn't exist then.). The UK is not superior and has never been. Ignorant idiot. Hell I think that the FRENCH are better then those unable to speak properly brits.

Also, ruskies are the only nation that could claim to have "won" WWII. Really, it was a team effort, but absolutely america cannot claim that. Also, your comment is retarded. We helped you in WWII and that's why you won. That's my entire point, that you don't win without our help (except a few times in the very early years).

So you speak French right? Since that's what the French speak, and if they are able to "speak properly" then surely you can too? If you mean English, may I remind you that the English invented English, it's our language.

[Caninope]

I think the general consensus is that without nukes, the Cold War would have been a lot hotter.

[Glorious Homeland]

America lost because the UK didn't help them in vietnam.

Aye, those pesky Brits, having a go at America again after 1784 and 1812...
Bad Lizzie! BAD!

We beat America in 1812.

Anyway, America has had limited military success without british help. Maybe the mexican war you won. And of course the civil war, but that was America vs America, so only America could have won, so it doesn't count.

Apart from that, they suck. They've always needed our help.

You are an extremely ignorant idiot. Let's think about who Saved your ass in WW2. And also not to mention We kicked your asses in the Revolutionary War when we had essentially pitchforks and you had tanks (for comparison reasons. I know tanks didn't exist then.). The UK is not superior and has never been. Ignorant idiot. Hell I think that the FRENCH are better then those unable to speak properly brits.

I agree the aforementioned statement isn't accurate, but your rebuttal isn't much better. The British Empire had a hayday of Global supremacy which lasted over a hundred years; the British also developed the industrial revolution to help counter the French Empire's productivity, the modern banking system to pay for a costly defeat against the French, oral exams to help determine if naval officers were fit for purpose, America was a British colony, the foundation of modern economists was by Adam Smith, a British citizen... the founder of modern biology; Charles Darwin, was a British citizen, the British Anglican church is one of the more tolerant sects of the Christian faith, Britain has stood side by side with American for most of the 20th and 21st century as brothers in arms, dismantled the empire in the name of majority rule, the RAF defeated the vastly numerically superior Luftwaffe in WW2, American tanks for the second part of the 20th century were equipped with British tank guns until the Germans produced a better one in the 1990s, a British engineer developed the VTOL aircraft, British engineers made the fastest commercial aircraft in the world that was banned from flying in the USA because the Americans didn't have anything as good, British engineers with their old rivals produced the channel tunnel; a tunnel under a sea... to point out a few examples.

Where's the fail?

Besides, the French were a powerful empire at many points in history; they were the reason Britain became powerful, because we had to innovate to counter French supremacy, so if you think they're a byword for wussiness then you need to read far more about history.
And besides again, in the civil war the British did not have proverbial tanks, both sides had infantry who had very similar weapons, training and capabilities; in the end the war was won decisively, ultimately beyond the fighting skill of the American colonists, more importantly by the French blockade and the relatively low worth of the American colonies. Jamaica had more worth for it's sugar production back then than the entire colonies, so after a long fight the Empire decided it best to drop it, as it wasn't worth the hassle.

Ahem.

Besides, Americans have bastardised the mother-tongue more than anything. Dropping the use of "u" in many words and replacing "s" for "z" is without just cause and basis. Admittedly it'd be interesting to see how American English and British English would evolve if they had been separated for centuries, but that won't happen.

I think the general consensus is that without nukes, the Cold War would have been a lot hotter.

Agreed.

[NERVUN]

You are an extremely ignorant idiot. Let's think about who Saved your ass in WW2. And also not to mention We kicked your asses in the Revolutionary War when we had essentially pitchforks and you had tanks (for comparison reasons. I know tanks didn't exist then.). The UK is not superior and has never been. Ignorant idiot. Hell I think that the FRENCH are better then those unable to speak properly brits.

Knock off the flaming.

[NERVUN]

It was that, invade, or keep fighting and let millions more starve.

Don't get me wrong, as I have said before and will again (And again, and again, and again because this topic keeps coming up ), it was a bad choice out of a whole host of bad choices, but knowing all that we do know now, I still cannot see a way forward without causing more destruction or death. That doesn't make the bombings "right" or good in any way shape for form, they were evil and it is my ardent prayer that they will never be used again.

But one also has to look at what those cities were and how they were constructed to understand why bombing campagins of any kind would be difficult in Japan, even today in the time of lazer guided weapons and the like.

Pfft. We can just let the Sea Shepherds deal with you nowadays.

Bleck... I'm highly against Japan's whaling, but Sea Shepherd should do it's shepherding at the bottom of the sea.

Though I'm all for giving nukes to whales and letting them take care of the problem themselves.

[NERVUN]

Besides, Americans have bastardised the mother-tongue more than anything. Dropping the use of "u" in many words and replacing "s" for "z" is without just cause and basis. Admittedly it'd be interesting to see how American English and British English would evolve if they had been separated for centuries, but that won't happen.

I believe I have read that American English is actually closer to the English spoken and written in the 1700's than the current British English. The Brits changed, we didn't.

[Glorious Homeland]

Besides, Americans have bastardised the mother-tongue more than anything. Dropping the use of "u" in many words and replacing "s" for "z" is without just cause and basis. Admittedly it'd be interesting to see how American English and British English would evolve if they had been separated for centuries, but that won't happen.

I believe I have read that American English is actually closer to the English spoken and written in the 1700's than the current British English. The Brits changed, we didn't.

Really? Any sources? I'd be interested to read that. My examples cited seem historically accurate. The use of "u" in colour, armour, etc, all relate directly from the early French influence on the language; and "z" was never used in plurals, that's not typical in German or French or Scandanavian languages or Latin, from which the languages descends, but Greek?

[Metropolis and Britain]

Do you think the world would be a better place if the Manhattan Project had never taken place, and we did not have nuclear weapons? Or has the fear of nuclear war forced people to resolve their problems more peacefully?

I'm biased because my grandparents worked on the Manhattan Project, but I tend to think the fear of nuclear weapons is the reason the Cold War never turned into World War 3. What do you think?

I agree with you on that, it certainly does seem like it kept WW3 from happening. But what if Franz Ferdinand had never been assassinated? WW1 might not have happened. And if WW1 never happened, WW2 might not have happened, making nukes pointless. Well, provided no other wars started. But, how would the world today be then? Computers were originally made to improve code breaking in the UK, and I guess that's where the idea to improve them came from until we finally got to here with our computers.

[Person012345]

Computers were originally made to improve code breaking in the UK, and I guess that's where the idea to improve them came from until we finally got to here with our computers.

I'm almost certain this is wrong.

Though it probably depends what you define as a computer.

[NERVUN]

Besides, Americans have bastardised the mother-tongue more than anything. Dropping the use of "u" in many words and replacing "s" for "z" is without just cause and basis. Admittedly it'd be interesting to see how American English and British English would evolve if they had been separated for centuries, but that won't happen.

I believe I have read that American English is actually closer to the English spoken and written in the 1700's than the current British English. The Brits changed, we didn't.

Really? Any sources? I'd be interested to read that. My examples cited seem historically accurate. The use of "u" in colour, armour, etc, all relate directly from the early French influence on the language; and "z" was never used in plurals, that's not typical in German or French or Scandanavian languages or Latin, from which the languages descends, but Greek?

The original source was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in university and lost to wherever the hell I put my notes from Linguistics.
However, Wiki does provide a good breakdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_a ... ifferences

Some of the spelling is due to Webster, but then again, some was retained in the US and changed in the UK. There's a lot of words that have been retained in the US (Fall as a season for example), and the pronouciation has, well, that's a bit odd. Some areas in the US speak closer to what was here, others have shifted radically.

[Puff-Puff-Pass Land]

Though I still can't understand why the English insist on spelling "-er" as "-re".
Centre, metre, etc...

[New Somersetshire]

Hell I think that the FRENCH are better then those unable to speak properly brits.

No, the French suck even worse. They got their asses handed to them in both World Wars and the Franco-Prussian War.

[Teritora]

America lost because the UK didn't help them in vietnam.

Aye, those pesky Brits, having a go at America again after 1784 and 1812...
Bad Lizzie! BAD!

We beat America in 1812.

Anyway, America has had limited military success without british help. Maybe the mexican war you won. And of course the civil war, but that was America vs America, so only America could have won, so it doesn't count.

Apart from that, they suck. They've always needed our help.

You are an extremely ignorant idiot. Let's think about who Saved your ass in WW2. And also not to mention We kicked your asses in the Revolutionary War when we had essentially pitchforks and you had tanks (for comparison reasons. I know tanks didn't exist then.). The UK is not superior and has never been. Ignorant idiot. Hell I think that the FRENCH are better then those unable to speak properly brits.

I agree the aforementioned statement isn't accurate, but your rebuttal isn't much better. The British Empire had a hayday of Global supremacy which lasted over a hundred years; the British also developed the industrial revolution to help counter the French Empire's productivity, the modern banking system to pay for a costly defeat against the French, oral exams to help determine if naval officers were fit for purpose, America was a British colony, the foundation of modern economists was by Adam Smith, a British citizen... the founder of modern biology; Charles Darwin, was a British citizen, the British Anglican church is one of the more tolerant sects of the Christian faith, Britain has stood side by side with American for most of the 20th and 21st century as brothers in arms, dismantled the empire in the name of majority rule, the RAF defeated the vastly numerically superior Luftwaffe in WW2, American tanks for the second part of the 20th century were equipped with British tank guns until the Germans produced a better one in the 1990s, a British engineer developed the VTOL aircraft, British engineers made the fastest commercial aircraft in the world that was banned from flying in the USA because the Americans didn't have anything as good, British engineers with their old rivals produced the channel tunnel; a tunnel under a sea... to point out a few examples.

Where's the fail?

Besides, the French were a powerful empire at many points in history; they were the reason Britain became powerful, because we had to innovate to counter French supremacy, so if you think they're a byword for wussiness then you need to read far more about history.
And besides again, in the civil war the British did not have proverbial tanks, both sides had infantry who had very similar weapons, training and capabilities; in the end the war was won decisively, ultimately beyond the fighting skill of the American colonists, more importantly by the French blockade and the relatively low worth of the American colonies. Jamaica had more worth for it's sugar production back then than the entire colonies, so after a long fight the Empire decided it best to drop it, as it wasn't worth the hassle.

Ahem.

Besides, Americans have bastardised the mother-tongue more than anything. Dropping the use of "u" in many words and replacing "s" for "z" is without just cause and basis. Admittedly it'd be interesting to see how American English and British English would evolve if they had been separated for centuries, but that won't happen.

I think the general consensus is that without nukes, the Cold War would have been a lot hotter.

Agreed.

Well American English isn't so much Bastardised as making use of language that was common in the areas England of 16th century England where the the colonists came from. It has many words and meanings of Middle English or Early Modern English orgins which have never gone out of use in the States, it is also rhotic which was common in most parts of 17th century english. You could say its more Archaic than British English but I wouldn't call it bastardized.

[The Celestial Union]

Though I still can't understand why the English insist on spelling "-er" as "-re".
Centre, metre, etc...

a lot of it goes bac to Noah Webster He wrote/compiled the rirst American dictionary
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

'He hoped to standardize American speech, since Americans in different parts of the country used different languages. They also spelled, pronounced, and used English words differently.'
Webster' In order to evaluate etymology etc. Webster is said to have leanrd 26 langauges and it took 27 years to compile the dictionary.

'Webster believed that English spelling rules were unnecessarily complex, so his dictionary introduced American English spellings, replacing "colour" with "color", substituting "wagon" for "waggon", and printing "center" instead of "centre". He also added American words, like "skunk" and "squash", that did not appear in British dictionaries '

[Puff-Puff-Pass Land]

Though I still can't understand why the English insist on spelling "-er" as "-re".
Centre, metre, etc...

a lot of it goes bac to Noah Webster He wrote/compiled the rirst American dictionary
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

'He hoped to standardize American speech, since Americans in different parts of the country used different languages. They also spelled, pronounced, and used English words differently.'
Webster' In order to evaluate etymology etc. Webster is said to have leanrd 26 langauges and it took 27 years to compile the dictionary.

'Webster believed that English spelling rules were unnecessarily complex, so his dictionary introduced American English spellings, replacing "colour" with "color", substituting "wagon" for "waggon", and printing "center" instead of "centre". He also added American words, like "skunk" and "squash", that did not appear in British dictionaries '

Smart man.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Hell I think that the FRENCH are better then those unable to speak properly brits.

No, the French suck even worse. They got their asses handed to them in both World Wars and the Franco-Prussian War.

They did quite well in WWI, even I give them that as a Frank hating cabbage head.

Were it not for General Joffre in the Battle of the Marne the world as we know it wouldn't exist. The Schlieffen plan would have gone like clockwork, and today we'd probably still have a military marching in columns and dressed in pretty colours.

Actually damn the French for halting the Germans!

In all honesty, the Belgians disrupted the Schlieffen plan more than the French did. Had they not held Liege for as long as they had, the French and British armies would have had no time to deploy to the Marne to counter the German offensive, and Paris would have fallen. A peace with France probably could have been made at that point.

[Person012345]

Though I still can't understand why the English insist on spelling "-er" as "-re".
Centre, metre, etc...

Maybe because that's how they're spelt.

[Unilisia]

Do you think the world would be a better place if the Manhattan Project had never taken place, and we did not have nuclear weapons? Or has the fear of nuclear war forced people to resolve their problems more peacefully?

I'm biased because my grandparents worked on the Manhattan Project, but I tend to think the fear of nuclear weapons is the reason the Cold War never turned into World War 3. What do you think?

I agree with what you said, however I want nuclear war to just wipe humanity off of Earth since were too idiotic and undeserving of specieshood anyway.

[Dyakovo]

Though I still can't understand why the English insist on spelling "-er" as "-re".
Centre, metre, etc...

Maybe because that's how they're spelt in England.

Fixed.

[New Somersetshire]

Though I still can't understand why the English insist on spelling "-er" as "-re".
Centre, metre, etc...

Maybe because that's how they're spelt in England.

Fixed.

"Metre" is screwy, but theatre really is spelled "theatre" IMO, and I am not British.

[Puff-Puff-Pass Land]

Though I still can't understand why the English insist on spelling "-er" as "-re".
Centre, metre, etc...

Maybe because that's how they're spelt in England.

Fixed.

"Metre" is screwy, but theatre really is spelled "theatre" IMO, and I am not British.

Wow. My auto-spellcheck(Don't ask me, I don't want it) just went haywire.

[Brogavia]

We helped you in WWII and that's why you won. That's my entire point, that you don't win without our help (except a few times in the very early years).

You're still spouting that crap? Without American industrial muscle, the British would have never been able to capitalize on their early victories in WW2. They wouldn't have been able to supply their armies across the globe without American ship building. Monty wouldn't have been able to push back Romel if we hadn't given the 8th Army the Sherman tanks designated for Operation Torch. With literally no threat of a British only Cross channel invasion, they could have brought dozens of divisions and hundreds of thousands of men from Western Europe to the East, where they could have made a difference other than giving the French Resistance its overhyped reputation.

[Person012345]

Though I still can't understand why the English insist on spelling "-er" as "-re".
Centre, metre, etc...

Maybe because that's how they're spelt in England.

Fixed.

Like I said.