Why i think the USA won't Nuke or invade Iran

**ninja9578** · 02-19-2008 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms (have guns), so guns are not supposed to be banned in any city.

The second amendment gives the states the right to have a militia to fight back an overbearing government, you need to look at the bill of rights.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If the people want to ban guns from their city it's perfectly legal to do so, it severely drops the rate of violent crimes. There are more than this, but the following cities have gun bans: NYC, Jersey City, Newark, Albany. It is illegal to own any kind of firearm in any of them.

**Alric** · 02-19-2008 05:49 PM

The bill of rights gives individuals the rights to bear arms. Everyone who is serious about studying the constitution knows it. Its only the stupid gun control people who try and argue it gives states the right to have a militia.

Its funny, the entire bill of right is written up to protect individuals rights. All of them talk about the peoples rights, yet some how the second one is different in talking about the states and not the peoples rights to have guns? Thats kind of a silly claim, especially since it says "the right of the people" in it.

Also its a pointless arguement, since the 9th amendment gives you the right to bear arms as well.

**ninja9578** · 02-19-2008 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

The bill of rights gives individuals the rights to bear arms. Everyone who is serious about studying the constitution knows it. Its only the stupid gun control people who try and argue it gives states the right to have a militia.

No, it means that the government can't arrest you for being part of a militia, not necessarily a state. I mentioned state, but I meant any local government.

Also its a pointless arguement, since the 9th amendment gives you the right to bear arms as well.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

How exactly?

The 2nd amendment was written to allow local governments to fight off a overbearing federal government in case the government decided to become England-like. No one is denying you the right to own a gun unless they've been banned by your local government (I own a handgun,) it was written in the time of musket loaders.

I want biological weapons.

Can't have those they're too dangerous.

I have the right to bear arms. Arms is defined as any offensive or defensive weapon.

There needs to be restrictions, anthrax is only used to kill people.

What about AK-47s?

Well we can't restrict those.

You really go duck hunting with machine guns?

**Universal Mind** · 02-19-2008 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Okay, I get it, but still.. what's the point of nuking your own land just to prevent an invasion? It just isn't logical.

I was saying that we would nuke China and China would probably nuke us in return, if they were willing to kill all of the soldiers that arrived here.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Sorry, I didn't phrase that sentence correctly. What I meant to say was that Insurgents are mostly rebels or 'terrorists' that have had training in guerilla warfare, etc, hence their current effectiveness in the Iraq war. Citizens, at most, form untrained militias, of which their effectiveness varies. I hope that clears things up. Oh, just an FYI, I simply live in the UK, my nationality is not English.

So, you are an American? I was just wondering what you meant by "here".

Trained guerillas are better at guerilla warfar than people who are not trained in it. But a person with a gun is a problem, period. 200 million people with guns are a huge problem, even if all they are doing is sitting in their houses or wherever with their guns and waiting for a problem while just a few are shooting out their windows. That is stretching things all the way to the minimum scenario. It adds a whole new factor for those who are trying to take over cities.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Noted, but nonetheless... people would still try to move away from danger and peril. Of course, there would be numerous people who would stick around, but it would only be a fraction of the majority.

Even if they all flee, wherever they go would be much more difficult to take over. Imagine trying to take over Chicago. Think about that picture, for example.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

In war, numbers confer little advantage. Considering any armed force is vastly better supplied than maybe 20 million armed citizens, even those twenty million aren't much in the face of a sustained conflict.

Just keep thinking about trying to take over Chicago. Then think about trying to take over Los Angeles, New York, Washington, small towns in Mississippi and Alabama, wherever. There is no way that an armed citizenry is not going to add difficulty to that when our military is already handling things.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I haven't seen Iran do much other than blow a whole load of smoke, of which the US administration has done nothing but respond to obvious provocations.

Only by blowing smoke back.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

. Plus, making a comment such as "Can they blow up an entire country within thirty minutes?" is not exactly a positive thing to boast about.

The point is that China does not want to take over a country that can do that. I hope we never blow up a country, by the way.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

My sarcasm meter just went off the scale... heh, I only made that as a comment, not to boast about it like a pissing contest.

Well, I couldn't resist such a golden opportunity to smart off after you threw the first sarcasm punch.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Please, don't assume ignorance just because I made reference to only one thing. I'm not assuming you're stupid, I'm just curious as to all the assertions you have made.

You mean Starship Troopers isn't really your guide to history?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Relying on nukes as a deterrent is fairly weak, to be honest. Besides, this is a theoretical discussion on the highly unlikely scenario of a chinese invasion on the US, and China and the US have strong economic ties anyway, so neither would consider an invasion, nor nuking the shit out of the other.

Nukes are not a deterrent? They worked pretty well on Japan. Our nukes also had the Soviet Union going berzerk with its low socialist budget. It is what hurried them out of existence.

Nobody wants to invade a country that can nuke them out of existence.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

"I hope most of what is said here is said in a light-hearted fashion", if that helps.

Nooooooooooo....

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The second amendment gives the states the right to have a militia to fight back an overbearing government, you need to look at the bill of rights.

What is most relevant is that the Supreme Court interprets it as a right to own guns. But you are wrong any way. The word "militia" is used as a justification for the right to own guns. It is not solely about a right to have a militia. It uses the right to have a militia as a reason guns have to be legal. It mentions the necessity of militias and then says...

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is some pretty plain English. It does not say, "... the right of the people to keep and bear militias shall not be infringed." Look really hard at the words.

Now for what "arms" means...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
arm2 /ɑrm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahrm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.

What kind of "arms" had they just used to fight the Revolutionary War? Slingshots and billy clubs?

**bluefinger** · 02-19-2008 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was saying that we would nuke China and China would probably nuke us in return, if they were willing to kill all of the soldiers that arrived here.

Actually, if it did end up like that, I'm sure China would simply skip the invasion bit and go for the nuking.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, you are an American? I was just wondering what you meant by "here".

My actual nationality is something I want to keep to myself (for the purpose of maintaining a certain amount of anonymity), but I can say I'm not American either. I prefer to see myself as a person of the world as opposed to a person of a country (just a preference, really).

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Trained guerillas are better at guerilla warfar than people who are not trained in it. But a person with a gun is a problem, period. 200 million people with guns are a huge problem, even if all they are doing is sitting in their houses or wherever with their guns and waiting for a problem while just a few are shooting out their windows. That is stretching things all the way to the minimum scenario. It adds a whole new factor for those who are trying to take over cities.

Maybe... but I remain sceptical about the actual effectiveness. Maybe in situations where people cannot flee and have no choice but to fight would they really be effective (again, nothing quite as dangerous as a desperate person), but as long as it is possible to flee from danger, then such effectiveness is somewhat iffy. Oh well, I think we have beaten this horse enough, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Even if they all flee, wherever they go would be much more difficult to take over. Imagine trying to take over Chicago. Think about that picture, for example.
Just keep thinking about trying to take over Chicago. Then think about trying to take over Los Angeles, New York, Washington, small towns in Mississippi and Alabama, wherever. There is no way that an armed citizenry is not going to add difficulty to that when our military is already handling things.

Yeah, geographical issues will be a big problem for any invading army, no matter it's size. But your armed citizenry (again those who are willing to fight) would be most concentrated in larger cities, whilst in the countryside, would be too spread out to really form effective resistance.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Only by blowing smoke back.

Well, perhaps if the US administration took a different tact with the Iranians (not invasion, btw), perhaps they may be more successful on dissuading the Iranians from their crazy shenanigans. You know... like getting them to sit on a table and take them seriously, because if they feel they aren't getting ignored or being threatened with sanctions, perhaps they might feel more inclined to listen. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The point is that China does not want to take over a country that can do that. I hope we never blow up a country, by the way.

And I hope no country, US or otherwise, makes the choice of using a nuke.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Well, I couldn't resist such a golden opportunity to smart off after you threw the first sarcasm punch.

Heh, fair game...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You mean Starship Troopers isn't really your guide to history?

Oh no, it sure isn't. If I want a guide to history, I pick up a book on the subject. I merely made the reference because it was a movie I enjoyed due to its dark satire and comment on various elements of American society, etc. Plus, it was a fun, b-movie style sci-fi war film.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Nukes are not a deterrent? They worked pretty well on Japan. Our nukes also had the Soviet Union going berzerk with its low socialist budget. It is what hurried them out of existence.

Nobody wants to invade a country that can nuke them out of existence.

First of all, the Japanese never knew the development of such a powerful weapon, and so when it was first used, it had the shock effect which was very effective at melting the Japanese mentality. Now, if they had known, they would have probably tried to find ways to prevent such bombings from occurring, but as it was obvious they weren't aware, and had two cities pretty much levelled, of course it was going to dissuade them. Such is the effectiveness of a surprise attack, not necessarily due to the nuke.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Nooooooooooo....

GASP!! D:

**Universal Mind** · 02-20-2008 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Actually, if it did end up like that, I'm sure China would simply skip the invasion bit and go for the nuking.

Then why would we nuke them?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

My actual nationality is something I want to keep to myself (for the purpose of maintaining a certain amount of anonymity), but I can say I'm not American either. I prefer to see myself as a person of the world as opposed to a person of a country (just a preference, really).

What? Telling me what country you are from would reveal who you are? Wait... You're that guy who was born in Canada. Busted!

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Maybe... but I remain sceptical about the actual effectiveness. Maybe in situations where people cannot flee and have no choice but to fight would they really be effective (again, nothing quite as dangerous as a desperate person), but as long as it is possible to flee from danger, then such effectiveness is somewhat iffy. Oh well, I think we have beaten this horse enough, don't you think?

Sure. But I am still not ready to put on armor and walk into Detroit when everybody there is ready to kill me, especially if they are just helping out the U.S. military.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Yeah, geographical issues will be a big problem for any invading army, no matter it's size. But your armed citizenry (again those who are willing to fight) would be most concentrated in larger cities, whilst in the countryside, would be too spread out to really form effective resistance.

What are the Chinese troops going to do out in the countryside? Take over some hills?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Well, perhaps if the US administration took a different tact with the Iranians (not invasion, btw), perhaps they may be more successful on dissuading the Iranians from their crazy shenanigans. You know... like getting them to sit on a table and take them seriously, because if they feel they aren't getting ignored or being threatened with sanctions, perhaps they might feel more inclined to listen. Just a thought.

I think it is maybe worth a try, but don't forget that we are dealing with religious nuts who train terrorist groups to kill "infidels" and stone people to death for adultery and homosexuality. It is not very different from trying to reason with rabid dogs. What could we possibly say to the Iranian government that would convince them not to have nukes other than, "You build nukes, bad things happen to you."?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And I hope no country, US or otherwise, makes the choice of using a nuke.

Ditto. I hope nobody ever uses a nuke again. I think the Chinese feel the same way. I don't think the Iranians do.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Oh no, it sure isn't. If I want a guide to history, I pick up a book on the subject. I merely made the reference because it was a movie I enjoyed due to its dark satire and comment on various elements of American society, etc. Plus, it was a fun, b-movie style sci-fi war film.

I think your sarcasm detector must have blown a fuse. Or maybe mine is going off so hard I can't even hear it.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

First of all, the Japanese never knew the development of such a powerful weapon, and so when it was first used, it had the shock effect which was very effective at melting the Japanese mentality. Now, if they had known, they would have probably tried to find ways to prevent such bombings from occurring, but as it was obvious they weren't aware, and had two cities pretty much levelled, of course it was going to dissuade them. Such is the effectiveness of a surprise attack, not necessarily due to the nuke.

I think having two cities levelled has people rethinking strategy pretty much every time. I also think that the threat of having two cities levelled has a lot of people putting away their strategy pads and going fishing.

**bluefinger** · 02-20-2008 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then why would we nuke them?

Perhaps out of boredom maybe? Only joking... well, if in that case, then it wouldn't happen, because again, simply too unlikely.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What? Telling me what country you are from would reveal who you are? Wait... You're that guy who was born in Canada. Busted!

Oh noes! I've been found out! Crap...

It's just my preference to maintain at least some form of anonymity with my personal details. Nothing personal, it's just a habit of mine.

Originally Posted by Universal

Mind Sure. But I am still not ready to put on armor and walk into Detroit when everybody there is ready to kill me, especially if they are just helping out the U.S. military.

Heh, fair enough...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What are the Chinese troops going to do out in the countryside? Take over some hills?

Well, manoeuvre their armies to and fro... easier to move through areas of less resistance. May not necessarily mean claiming a hill, but if an army can move more freely, then it would advantageous to secure the countryside.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think it is maybe worth a try, but don't forget that we are dealing with religious nuts who train terrorist groups to kill "infidels" and stone people to death for adultery and homosexuality. It is not very different from trying to reason with rabid dogs. What could we possibly say to the Iranian government that would convince them not to have nukes other than, "You build nukes, bad things happen to you."?

I am aware of their 'policies' and human rights record, but sometimes, getting them to sit down by a table and taking them seriously is really the only way to get them to listen. And also, the only way change is going to happen within the country is if the people are willing enough to risk their lives for it, and if the chance is given for change to flourish, so this is something to work towards on the long-term scale, as opposed to the short-term diffusing of this 'pissing contest' between Iran and the US government.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Ditto. I hope nobody ever uses a nuke again. I think the Chinese feel the same way. I don't think the Iranians do.

I think maybe the Iranians want a Dr. Frankenstein moment with nuclear power... you know.. "it's alive! It's ALIVE!!" and the power rush it gives. Perhaps we wouldn't such a problem with the Iranians developing nuclear power if they simply allowed the necessary concessions in order to insure it was only for peaceful purposes right from the beginning. Who knows...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think your sarcasm detector must have blown a fuse. Or maybe mine is going off so hard I can't even hear it.

If my sarcasm detector is broke, it was from your overwhelming sarcastic posts

. But the thing is... I actually enjoyed that movie... I even have it in my DVD collection.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think having two cities levelled has people rethinking strategy pretty much every time. I also think that the threat of having two cities levelled has a lot of people putting away their strategy pads and going fishing.

Or with the latter option, only encourage the most fearless, and probably sociopathic strategists to keep on scheming and plotting. But, in the Japanese situation, I think a lot of the strategical change was due to the fact it was essentially a complete surprise, along with the severity of the attack that forced them to change tact.

**Timothy Paradox** · 02-20-2008 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by bluefinger

My actual nationality is something I want to keep to myself (for the purpose of maintaining a certain amount of anonymity), but I can say I'm not American either. I prefer to see myself as a person of the world as opposed to a person of a country

Halleluya! I like you already.

**Alric** · 02-20-2008 08:50 AM

The general consensus is that the 2nd amendment protects peoples rights to own guns. There is also a long standing tradition with people owning guns, and its considered a right. So even if they are wrong, the 9th amendment says, just because your rights are not writen down, doesn't mean they aren't protected under the law.

Thus anyone if someone argues, the right to own a gun isn't written down, you point first to the 2nd amendment and if they say thats wrong, you point to the 9th.

Anyway, its kind of silly to say your allowed to form a militia but your not allowed to own any weapons that are capable of defeating an oppressive government. You just said the point was to defend themself from an overbearing federal government, yet they are not allowed to own any guns?

If something is illegal for the government to own, of course the people shouldn't have them either. But if the government can have tanks and stuff I don't see a problem allowing the population to have machine guns.

**Scatterbrain** · 02-20-2008 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

Anyway, its kind of silly to say your allowed to form a militia but your not allowed to own any weapons that are capable of defeating an oppressive government. You just said the point was to defend themself from an overbearing federal government, yet they are not allowed to own any guns?

If something is illegal for the government to own, of course the people shouldn't have them either. But if the government can have tanks and stuff I don't see a problem allowing the population to have machine guns.

I don't how the guns situation is there in the USA, but if people are allowed to have guns just because of a 200 hundred years old document, then it can't get any sillier.

**Alric** · 02-20-2008 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I don't how the guns situation is there in the USA, but if people are allowed to have guns just because of a 200 hundred years old document, then it can't get any sillier.

Thats because you dont know anything about history. The people in the US believe they have a god given right to defend themself, and their property. Our rights don't come from any piece of paper, we are born with them. The paper is only there to protect our rights. It basicly tells the government, "Back off! We have rights and since you serve us, the people, you will not take them away!"

The age of the paper is utterly pointless. Some people, especially gun control advocates would like you to believe that owning guns is an outdated idea. Nothing could be further from the truth however. The right to defend yourself has been a right all throughout history. Had the US been created a 1000 years ago it may have said, your right to own a sword shall not be infringed. And if it did it would still apply to guns. Because its not about owning a gun, its about having a right to defend yourself and your property.