●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byTWiTfan ( 2887093 ) writes:
It only takes ONE to start a major war.
twitter
facebook
bySJHillman ( 1966756 ) writes:
There's no history to back that up. However, history would suggest that it only takes two to end a major war. So maybe N Korea is just preparing to end three wars.
The only reason you know the above isn't true is because it's more logical than what N Korea usually comes up with.
bySollord ( 888521 ) writes:
So because we have no recorded history of someones using a nuke to start a war means we won't have a major war if just one is used?
bynedlohs ( 1335013 ) writes:
Of course not, you should get a refund from whomever your logic teacher was though.
bySollord ( 888521 ) writes:
In case you missed it I was being sarcastic towards the post i was replying to there's no logic involved...
bynedlohs ( 1335013 ) writes:
I didn't miss the sarcasm. It doesn't change that it doesn't make sense to make fun of a claim the person never actually made.
But sure, you could have just made it up completely rather than making an error in the logic of the claim.
byLivius ( 318358 ) writes:
World War I only took two bullets.
bySJHillman ( 1966756 ) writes:
The current record for shortest war ever is the Anglo-Zanzibar war at 40 minutes. Even with nukes, it would be hard to beat that against any opponent larger than a city.
bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:
If you're suggesting that North Korea would be nuked in retaliation for a nuclear attack, I dare say that South Korea would object to that plan.
bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:
Even then I don't think the additional long-term damage from a further nuclear strike right next door would be worth it, compared to a conventional response.
●nt threshold.
byLumpy ( 12016 ) writes:
Nope.
They fricking crashed planes into our buildings and attacked the Pentagon and we did not go to war. WE called it war, but it was a half assed attempt. If it was a war we wound have carpet bombed every fricking city known to have talaban, and Pakastan right now would be shaking in their boots that we would come in and clean their house for them.
After 9/11 we could have NUKED something and the world would have not bat an eye, instead of acting like the lion, we acted like a scared bird.
byPopeRatzo ( 965947 ) writes:
They fricking crashed planes into our buildings and attacked the Pentagon and we did not go to war. WE called it war, but it was a half assed attempt. If it was a war we wound have carpet bombed every fricking city known to have talaban, and Pakastan right now would be shaking in their boots that we would come in and clean their house for them.
After 9/11 we could have NUKED something and the world would have not bat an eye, instead of acting like the lion, we acted like a scared bird.
"They"?
I had no idea th
byAnonymous Coward writes:
The world would have done more than "bat an eye". The world was up in arms over your idiotic and nonsensical invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (neither of which had anything much to do with 11/9) and you can bet your donkey there would have been international uproar if the US had gone nuclear.
By the way, massacring thousands or millions of innocent, defenceless people (whether by nuclear or conventional weapons) is not "acting like a lion". It's "lashing out like a frightened, hysterical pussy". But then th
byTWiTfan ( 2887093 ) writes:
Are you seriously going to contend that thousands of Catholics in Northern Ireland weren't beaten, killed, imprisoned, etc. during that conflict? Oh yes, Britain certainly has NO blood on its hands. It's not like they've invaded 9 out of 10 countries [telegraph.co.uk] in the world at some point, or anything. Only those brutish Yanks would do that!
byTWiTfan ( 2887093 ) writes:
Yeah, a hundred years ago, ancient history. Tell that to the Falkland Islands.
byTWiTfan ( 2887093 ) writes:
No, it's about a Brit daring to lecture *anyone else* on the immorality of imperialism, as if you have some moral high ground on the matter.
●rrent threshold.
bysocode ( 703891 ) writes:
> Did we flush our civil rights down the toilet, set up a bunch of overfunded, unaccountable security theatre agencies and usher in a police state in the name of "security"?
Yes.
●rrent threshold.
●ent threshold.
●ent threshold.
●rent threshold.
bycamperdave ( 969942 ) writes:
Actually, the world pretty much unanimously condemned your country's response to 9-11. You would have been faced with trade sanctions and cancelled treaties if you'd actuall gone ahead and nuked something. You think your economy is in the dog-house now? Imagine it if you didn't have access to half your imports and exports.
●nt threshold.
byDaniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) writes:
WE called it war, but blah blah blah bunch of 101st Fighting Keyboarder macho chest-thumping
Why don't you go up to some of my friends who came back from Iraq or Afghanistan missing pieces of themselves and tell them they weren't in a war. I dare you.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byDaniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) writes:
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
So how, exactly, do you think Iraq and Afghanistan don't fit into this? The entire period of our involvement in those two countries has certainly involved "open, armed and prolonged conflict," and note the word "parties" at the end of that definition--it doesn't have to be nation-states. Any time you have two or more large bodies of armed people trying to kill each other, you have a war. You can call it "peacekeeping" or anything else you like, but that doesn't change what it is.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
●ent threshold.
●ent threshold.
●rent threshold.
●nt threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...