OT:US don't qualify for EU membership, don't spank children, WW2 history.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Tesco - Are you refering to the government as portrayed in the "movie" (note scare quotes indicating my abject refusal to grant that piece of bantha fodder any positive relation to the book), or the one in the book? The government in the book was specifically stated by one of the characters to be almost identical to America's present system, except you had to be a discharged veteran to vote. What's so "totalitarian" about that?

Ruatha - First, there was no "boy gets girl" theme in Troopers. Yes, Juan was attracted to Carmen, but nothing came of it in the book and it leaves their relationship totally unresolved.

Second, to jar your memory, in Troopers corporal punishment was not only accepted and practiced in childraising, but also in the criminal justice system. Jail time for non-capital crimes was replaced with public floggings (alluded to numerous times in the book, and even endured by the main character on one occasion). The idea was that pain and humiliation were the best ways to inculcate social behavior when appeals to reason were exhausted (which Heinlein would set at a far lower bar than most today IMHO).

A few flogging would go a long way in this country. We could start with Ms. Stewart and then move on to the Enron gang. I’ll bet there would be some accounting adjustments made then, the corporate world would be scrambling to get the books corrected.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Yes, but the issue was very much in doubt for a while. The Germans could have beaten the Russians with a few breaks and some better decision making. It makes you wonder if the Germans had their full force attacking the Russians, instead of holding much in reserve to defend the Atlantic Wall, and the Russians had not had the support of the lend lease program if they would have been able to hold out.

Geoschmo

Germany could never win. I do not think most people on the West fully understand how strong was the determination and resolve of russians. I know it from what my granddad told - he fight from 41 to 43 (he was sapper and Last both fists when mine exploded but survived). Even if Germans made no mistakes and capture Moscow - so did Napoleon. France surrended after losing Paris, but Russia is just to big. Fall of Moscow and Leningrad would be a severe loss and death of many more millions of people but it would only prolong war not change the outcome. It is rather pointless to speculate now, history does not know "what if", that is just what I feel.

---

Sorry my friend, but the Soviets were putting out feelers for a negotiated settlement prior to Stalingrad. Had 7th Army wheeled east and crossed the river, the war in Russia would probably have ended that fall. West of the Urals would have been Germany’s and the Soviets would have kept everything to the east. Stalin would have gotten a new neck tie, and history would have been different.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
...Sorry my friend, but the Soviets were putting out feelers for a negotiated settlement prior to Stalingrad. Had 7th Army wheeled east and crossed the river, the war in Russia would probably have ended that fall. West of the Urals would have been Germany’s and the Soviets would have kept everything to the east. Stalin would have gotten a new neck tie, and history would have been different.

This is nonsense. Stalin would never capitulate in 1942. Fall of 41 - may be. And it was 6th Army.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:

quote:

---

Unknown_Enemy I believe Oleg was talking about the number of missles vs SDI. Well that is what I read from it. So with not enough missles their program becomes obsolete vs SDI.

I read again Oleg's post and I am not sure.
But in doubt, I edited/deleted my previous post.

---

I missed your first Posts What I mean is if SDI can shoot down for example 100 missiles, China' nuclear arsenal would become useless, they have only dozens or so missiles. Not sure about France, it may have more missiles.

This is the major problem with SDI, IMHO. It may prompt creation of more nukes then there is now on the Earth.

---

You guys need to think it through a little further. If 1000 ICBM fly and all get shot down, the human race has very few years to live. All of that material will contaminate the atmosphere. And Plutonium is the deadliest substance known to man. SDI if for the third world bastards like North Korea. It will remove much of the power they expected to gain from deploying their weapons.

SDI is already deployed by the way. The new Standard II missile has the ability to catch and shoot down ICBM during early boost. So long as the distance between the launch points is short and detections is immediate. The Standard III will extend the range quite a bit, but will still require rapid deployment on launch notice. A look at the sea around Korea will show a couple of Aegis cruisers, they are not just there to piss the NK’s off.

The main thing that SDI is doing for now, is funding research. The first beam weapons will probably come from this work. America has about a 10-20 year lead in weapons systems over the rest of the world. This gap will replace our atomic warheads as the deterrent of the next fifty years and beyond.

BTW, did any of you catch the commissioning of the Ronald Reagan a few weeks ago? It is a little strange to look at with its redesigned island.

[ July 27, 2003, 01:54: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[Thermodyne]

I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.

[oleg]

No question, total nuclear war is the end of the mankind. I know very well the actual reason behind SDI is a noble one and has nothing to do with underminding the world security. However, that can become a side effect and a very serious one. OK, US will become secure against Noth Korea missiles.
But take a place of Chinese Gensek (sorry, don't know his name). How can he be sure it was not just a ruse to nullify China' arsenal ?? His first and totally justified reaction would be to review and modernize his nuclear deterrant.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.

Hmm, can you please give a link ? After all, Comic Ali statements are public documents now

Battle of Stalingrad was an important moment in WWII, but its fall could not imperill USSR in a bit. I was born not far from Stalingrad (300 miles up the Volga river). There is NOTHING to the east from Stalingrad. Just Kazakh steppe with the population density of Australia Nothern Territories. There is no reason whatsoever to surrender.

Just take it into perspective: suppose Germany build a bridge to US or dry out Atlantic. In the first year, US heroicaly defends Washington and New York but lose Boston and Atlanta. Next year, Germany changes the direction, capture Atlanta and attack Saint Louis (sp. sorry.) The rational is of course to cut off the Texas oil fields. Once Germans crosses Mississipi, American President sidently surrende all states East from the river and moves to LA. Does it makes any sense whatsoever ???

BTW, Caspian oil was extremely important for 3rd Reich but not as much as to USSR. Tatarstan and Bashkirstan oil was at plenty. Loss of Stalingrad would have a very small effect on the Russian economy in 1942.

[ July 27, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: oleg ]