Gnostic Bishop Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 A nuclear WWIII will never happen. Dishonor will prevent it. Wars are fought for honor and a nuclear WWII would have nothing but shame for the initiator of such a war. Our leaders know that there would be no honor in a nuclear war that would destroy our environment and insure that there is no real winner. Any leader or military war machine under his command that would initiate such a war would know dishonor like the world has never seen. The hate for Hitler and his regime and ideology is still alive and well in the world and that hate would be dwarfed by the hate that the initiator of a third WWIII would feel from the world. The main reason for that hate and denial of honor would stem from the fact that any nuclear war would be fought against cities and their citizen instead of having an honorable battlefield war. No leader or military force will dishonor itself the way the U.S. did in Japan. Honor in war comes from facing an enemy man to man and our technology has now made that impossible. There is no honor in killing innocent non-combatant citizens in their beds from thousands of miles away. Ordinary people know this and so do their leaders and military. Mutual assured destruction says that any nuclear war will be self-genocide. Some who do not know why wars are fought, and honor sought, may think some leaders are foolish enough to initiate a nuclear war but forget that no high ranking military man, especially of Asian descent, would ever dishonor himself and his family by initiating such a war. Such a man of honor would never initiate such a dishonorable war. A man of honor would know though that he would not be doing his duty if he did not retaliate. Reciprocity is fair play and is honorable and duty and honor would force a reciprocal reply. Do you understand the psychological principles at play shown above and do you agree? Regards DL 1
RichardY Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 "Vanity, definitely my Favourite Sin." - Devil's Advocate. The fear of being original(Nietzsche), so you hide your true self, through the people that have influenced you in life and not subject your self to some form of Ethics or religious education perhaps. Ever see the movie "American Psycho"(Think, Hilary Clinton) basically the main protagonist ends up chainsawing and killing several people. But his father and the firm he "works" at end up, covering up for him. Well there was all that shit, with Hilary laughing at mass murder, not being aware of her surroundings, threatening to nuke Russia and giving them a "reset"("mistranslated" as overload) button passing out, fits, etc on the Internet. Maybe some people will do "out.......rageous" things, hoping to be caught at some point. Could have been amusing though, there is the whole thing with tactical nukes, just a small one. I mean society is basically built on one huge bomb, why not light the fuse now, somehow, rather than later, I guess people have commitments, so just pile up the bonfire higher. Agreeableness and vanity, is what makes War possible, "Romeo and Juliet" comes to mind. Some people may not see mass slaughter as War, more like pest control. "This is not War this is Pest control!" - Dr Who
ofd Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 Quote Wars are fought for honor and a nuclear WWII would have nothing but shame for the initiator of such a war. There would be no survivors to accuse the government. Also, which wars were fought because of honour?
mgggb Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 On 10/12/2017 at 2:56 PM, Gnostic Bishop said: Wars are fought for honor I agree that their will not be a nuclear ww3, but the above quote I disagree with. Wars are fought to be won. Winning is what the history books call honor. 1
RichardY Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 You don't understand what's going on here, do you? If we stop now, we lose. This president has determination to wage a nuclear war until acceptable outcome is achieved. By Dawns Early Light. 46 minutes ago, mgggb said: Wars are fought to be won. Winning is what the history books call honor. Damn straight kill them all, let God sort them out.
Jsbrads Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 Honor societies are a bit of a misnomer. because it is so hard to attain respect, requires lots of time and energy, and losing respect can be rapid and sudden, most honor societies have twisted motivations which aren't limited to cover ups, lies and murder. This of course ignores all the irrational actors, like Iran (who believe murdering others will grant themselves a great afterlife) NKorea (where lies are more common than truth and people believe falsehoods, propaganda and people in control are fairly insane) emotional actors like Pakistan, India, gamesmanship of Russia and China... 1
chaesbueb Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Because Mrs. Piggy up in North Korea is known for his "honor" and wouldn't push the button. I don't think anyone would nuke as a first strike, rather than using it a response attack like the US did. Since gunpowder, there isn't any honor left in War anyway.
Jsbrads Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 Castro was willing to let Cuba burn from end to end, if he could have a chance to hurt the US even a little. Kim isn't a better person.
Crusader1986 Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 While I do believe that a nuclear world war 3 will never be thought due to the concept of M.A.D, I believe there is a very strong possibility that eventually nukes will be used as a result of more countries acquiring nuclear weapons over time which in the end will likely result in 2 countries that have nukes going to war with each other. For me, the Islamic countries are the ones most likely to use their nukes if they ever get them, which they will. The appeasing of Iran won't last for ever, and the Iranians are hell bent on getting nuclear weapons, so they'll find a way to get them. It also helps Iran massively that they're good friends with Russia. As a result any kind of military action against Iran by the US is a very risky business indeed as it could risk an all out war with Russia, which no one wants. So Iran gets nukes. And what happens as a result? Saudi Arabia will want them. The Saudis and the Iranians loathe each other and the last thing the Saudis want is the Iranians getting nukes as it would give the Iranians overwhelming superiority and power in the region. So the Saudis would make sure they obtain nukes. They're already on good terms with Pakistan and there have been rumours that they've already done deals with North Korea and Pakistan to ship over nuclear materials on the market. In fact they're already doing their best to get nukes right now, recruiting the scientists and other people with knowledge on how to build a nuclear arsenal. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/786768/Nuclear-war-fears-Saudi-Arabia-nuclear-deal http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/873394/Saudi-Arabia-Nuclear-Weapons-Mohammed-bin-Salman-Uranium-Iran-Hashim-bin-Abdullah-Yamani http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11658338/The-Saudis-are-ready-to-go-nuclear.html And once the Saudis and the Iranians have nukes it's quite likely that other countries in the region such as Qatar, U.A.E and Jordan will want them. And seeing how the middle east is the most volatile, unstable region on the planet, the chances of a nuclear conflict going off there are very high, considering their Islamic Jihadist ideology. Remember these are not the most responsible and rational of people. And seeing how every country in the region is out to destroy Israel, this makes nuclear weapons being used at one point very likely. Especially if half the region acquires them. Hell even just Iran and Saudi Arabia obtaining them would make it likely as they're both theocratic regimes driven by Islam. The best outcome would be for Israel to send missiles to take out the Iranian installations and do the same with Saudi Arabia. Because once those two countries obtain nukes it will just be a matter of "when", not "if" they use them. However nuclear weapons could be the things in the end that totally wipe Islam off the map. The way muslims are going, pissing off Europeans with their never ending terror attacks and rape gangs, things in Europe are moving further and further towards an inevitable civil war between white Europeans and muslims. In addition to that, when it heats up, if by that point the Saudis and Iran have got nukes and are prepared to use them against Europe to help the cause of Jihad, that could be the point where Europe decides "fuck it" and not only decides to clean out the Islamic problem with a brutal, savage genocide in Europe on a mass scale, but also decides to nuke the shit out of the middle east as part of a program to wipe out Islam once and for all for all times. The world has only seen the West angry enough to use nukes once (or twice) before but it could easily happen again. Remember the Japanese treatment of Allied P.O.W.'s really made the Allies angry, and it was partly for that reason that the US decided to use nukes. What the muslims are currently doing and will likely do in Europe within the next decade is just as bad, if not worse, 1400 girls raped in Rotherham, blowing up and running over Western children in non stop terror attacks. And you just wait once the real jihad starts, like 500 muslims going to the streets and going on a stabbing spree the likes of which we've never seen. That shit is coming. And when it happens it's going to piss a lot of people off. Remember what Stefan says, white people are really nice until they're not. And then they're really really not nice. The dam is going to burst eventually and when it does it's just going to be a frenzy. The West could easily use nukes again, it's used them before, it could use them again, it's just a matter of when they will piss the west off enough. And at that point you could easily see the west use them again, just out of pure anger and revenge. But a nuclear world war 3? No, it's too risky. US knows it, China knows it, Russia knows it.
Jsbrads Posted November 5, 2017 Posted November 5, 2017 The only country to use Nukes was the US. And we were rocked ribbed back then, even our socialists weren't pussies, and we still had to be pushed into it. France were cucks the day WWI ended. Most of U.K. back then really wasn't much better. Germany joined the day WWII ended. Japan too. Thomas Sowell said today, he would not bet that we as a people could push the button, even if we were attacked. He surmises were would be more likely to surrender. I'm not betting against Sowell.
meetjoeblack Posted November 9, 2017 Posted November 9, 2017 I like How Stefan points about government failing and women needing men again. I see the same when war breaks out.
Gnostic Bishop Posted November 10, 2017 Author Posted November 10, 2017 On 13/10/2017 at 8:26 PM, RichardY said: "Vanity, definitely my Favourite Sin." That is what I am counting on. The one who starts a nuclear war will be a villan and not a hero so he will have to find another way to feed his vanity. Regards DL
Gnostic Bishop Posted November 10, 2017 Author Posted November 10, 2017 On 14/10/2017 at 4:25 AM, ofd said: There would be no survivors to accuse the government. Also, which wars were fought because of honour? None. But honorable cause have been the cause of war. Note the American Civil war that was fought for the honorable cause of ending slavery. Regards DL
Gnostic Bishop Posted November 10, 2017 Author Posted November 10, 2017 On 14/10/2017 at 12:23 PM, mgggb said: I agree that their will not be a nuclear ww3, but the above quote I disagree with. Wars are fought to be won. Winning is what the history books call honor. The American Civil war for the honor of ending slavery. The French Revolution to end the abuse of the rich against the poor. Are those not decent examples of wars of honor? Regards DL
ofd Posted November 10, 2017 Posted November 10, 2017 Quote The American Civil war for the honor of ending slavery. It was fought to keep the Southern States in the Union. Quote The French Revolution to end the abuse of the rich against the poor. The first National Assembly was instituted so the King could raise additional taxes.
RichardY Posted November 10, 2017 Posted November 10, 2017 Honour or the appearance of honour? Social metaphysicians or the protection of genesets.
Gnostic Bishop Posted November 12, 2017 Author Posted November 12, 2017 On 10/11/2017 at 4:03 PM, ofd said: Quote It was fought to keep the Southern States in the Union. That too as the North had to pass through the south to get to the shipping ports. Quote The first National Assembly was instituted so the King could raise additional taxes. Sure. Democracy and any other form of government must has cash flow.. Regards DL
Gnostic Bishop Posted November 12, 2017 Author Posted November 12, 2017 On 10/11/2017 at 4:42 PM, RichardY said: Honour or the appearance of honour? Social metaphysicians or the protection of genesets. Perception is everything. Regards DL
ofd Posted November 13, 2017 Posted November 13, 2017 Quote That too as the North had to pass through the south to get to the shipping ports. It was the casus belli and not the liberation of the slaves. That was used later.
Gnostic Bishop Posted November 13, 2017 Author Posted November 13, 2017 6 hours ago, ofd said: It was the casus belli and not the liberation of the slaves. That was used later. If true, shame on the North. Regards DL
Recommended Posts