Conquer Club

have you heard the news, we're begging the americans for more guns, for us this is very embarrising and humiliating, were supposed to be their allies, not their burdens and there are many other numerous problems in the uk at the moment you got all these feral kids and terrorists in which our government are too scared to get rid of, i dont even know which problems we should sort out 1st, and why are we getting rid' of our nukes, we should be making more and upgrading them. what do you lot think?

how is building more/upgrading our nukes supposed to stop stuff like knife crime?
also i dont like how youre basically calling all kids "feral" as im a kid and im no-where near "feral"

Brooksieb, just face reality. The Uk has been a second rate or third rate power since the Suez Crisis/2nd WW.
Chill-I'm cool with the Yanks doing the dirty work. We had a great Empire for 300 odd yers, and it just meant a lot of British kids got sent to their deaths on far flung battle fields.
Let the Yanks enjoy their empire, and we can enjoy cricket and cream teas.

suggs wrote:...and we can enjoy cricket and cream teas.

how did someone come up with the rules for cricket, theyre waayy to confusing...i know off topic

if the UK is such a second/third rate power then why do we still get our army thrown into every battle/war offered to us?
also the UK only lost its empire completely after ww1 so i dont know where you plummed 300yrs from

3mp3r0r wrote:

suggs wrote:...and we can enjoy cricket and cream teas.

how did someone come up with the rules for cricket, theyre waayy to confusing...i know off topic

if the UK is such a second/third rate power then why do we still get our army thrown into every battle/war offered to us?
also the UK only lost its empire completely after ww1 so i dont know where you plummed 300yrs from

no they did not, it got even bigger after and 1921 was when it start to fall up until the 1960's (the decade which i was born) after the 60's we didn't have a empire anymore only a few colonies

don't they teach you this stuff in school?

3mp3r0r wrote:how is building more/upgrading our nukes supposed to stop stuff like knife crime?
also i dont like how youre basically calling all kids "feral" as im a kid and im no-where near "feral"

i know not all kids are feral, there are alot of nice kids with a bright future ahead of them, there is a growing minority however, that are ruining it for you lot, are you trying to stick up for them? and im talking about britain in general so that includes knife crime and nuclear weapons

my dads history lecturer actally so got hundreds of books about english and irish history, also me mum studied deunification by means of war in uni and has loads of books about it...Basically i know a hell of a lot i would rather not know
1921-1960 the lost most of ireland ad were completely finished in India. They gained some colonies in Africa but not anything to brag about and i think they got claim to somewhere in europe (like belgium or holland)

Right. Some facts.
The British Empire reached its greatest territorial strength in 1920 when the Brits got the Palestine Mandate. So technically it was at its zenith between 1920-39.
I said three hundred years as a rough number. Its plausible to date the Britsh Empire from the Elizabethan colonisation of some of the Carribean.
But more realistic is Jamestown in 1601/3 (???) in some country no one has heard of since.

What you gus are talking about is not territorial extent, but British power.
And undoubtedly that was severely weakened after WW1, when for the first time ever, we owed the Americans money and not vice versa.
So one could argue the real peak of the Brits was 1913.

brooksieb wrote:and why are we getting rid' of our nukes

We're not. Which is not a good thing.

Yes, thank God we have a nuclear capbility so we can wipe out a terrorist cell and half of Pakistan with it. What a collosal waste of money

suggs wrote:Yes, thank God we have a nuclear capbility so we can wipe out a terrorist cell and half of Pakistan with it. What a collosal waste of money

MAD - the best acronym ever.

I never quite understood Mutaully Assured Donkeykong.

heavycola wrote:

suggs wrote:Yes, thank God we have a nuclear capbility so we can wipe out a terrorist cell and half of Pakistan with it. What a collosal waste of money

MAD - the best acronym ever.

Yes. It's so easy to learn what it means.

Is this some kind of riddle?

unriggable wrote:Is this some kind of riddle?

Mutually Assured Destruction. They don't teach it it your schools?

ignotus wrote:

unriggable wrote:Is this some kind of riddle?

Mutually Assured Destruction. They don't teach it it your schools?

I don't think they would get it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

ignotus wrote:

unriggable wrote:Is this some kind of riddle?

Mutually Assured Destruction. They don't teach it it your schools?

I don't think they would get it.

Basically it means that if Country A builds nukes in response to Country B building nukes, then they won't attack eack other for fear of obliteration - a word I am rather fond of.

so basically a cold war?
aint that nothing like whats going on seeing how we got america having fun with iraq/iran/afghanistan oil fields?

Why get rid of nukes?
Well maybe because Nukes can kill the whole world and because the nuke balance is way wrong and therefore there is a huge risk of a Nukewar that will destroy the earth. THAT is why we need to get rid of the nukes. But the US need to start destroing the Nukes first since they have crazy many

3mp3r0r wrote:if the UK is such a second/third rate power then why do we still get our army thrown into every battle/war offered to us?

Because war is a very lucrative business. It increases political influence and boosts the manufacturing industry, and that's before any loot has been plundered.

Nukes are thought to be alot more bigger than they are.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LZxmDJYBKKo

Yeah, they're insane and powerful, but not near as much as you think.

The casualties in Nagaski, and Hiroshima were huge, because the US are sick fucks and nuked the most populated cities, going for the most kills possible, rather than a strategic millitary offensive.

But I agree, there are probably more than enough nukes to destory the world 3 times over.

The major killer is the radiation, for it last thousands, millions, even billions of years.

Google Haliburton if you want to see why the people that send your kids to war decide to go to war.

Greven wrote:Why get rid of nukes?
Well maybe because Nukes can kill the whole world and because the nuke balance is way wrong and therefore there is a huge risk of a Nukewar that will destroy the earth. THAT is why we need to get rid of the nukes. But the US need to start destroing the Nukes first since they have crazy many

if anything we need to be building more neuclear weapons, ya know why? those little shitty states of iran and N. korea and russia (there's a second cold war going on) but it aint as serious as the 1st

The US needs nuclear weapons. They are the leaders of the free world. Assuming you believe in capitalist democracies, we need the Yanks to protect us (ie Europe) against the nutters in North Korea and Iran.
In a perfect world, we would have no nukes. But we cant be defenceless against countries that are unstable and aggressive.

But its pointless the UK having any. What are we going to do , nuke Paris?

suggs wrote:The US needs nuclear weapons. They are the leaders of the free world. Assuming you believe in capitalist democracies, we need the Yanks to protect us (ie Europe) against the nutters in North Korea and Iran.
In a perfect world, we would have no nukes. But we cant be defenceless against countries that are unstable and aggressive.

But its pointless the UK having any. What are we going to do , nuke Paris?

well say what if russia are planning a offensive against america, america gets nuked and is unable to carry on the war, the UK having nuclear weapons can carry on the war (if it gets desperate that is)

or another example say is, we disarm our weapons, we have a very powerful econemy, iran or north korea launches a neuclear weapon at the UK, the UK suffers a devistating blow of radiation that will last for centuries, or france for example, the USA is alone, against the likes of Iran, North korea, maybe a terrorist captured pakistan or india has turned against the Usa, or ethen a political unstable russia, the usa has no allies to turn to, Usa against the whole world how will they cope?

Dekloren wrote:Nukes are thought to be alot more bigger than they are.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LZxmDJYBKKo

Yeah, they're insane and powerful, but not near as much as you think.

The casualties in Nagaski, and Hiroshima were huge, because the US are sick fucks and nuked the most populated cities, going for the most kills possible, rather than a strategic millitary offensive.

But I agree, there are probably more than enough nukes to destory the world 3 times over.

The major killer is the radiation, for it last thousands, millions, even billions of years.

Google Haliburton if you want to see why the people that send your kids to war decide to go to war.

They nuked them to prevent having to perform a "strategic military offensive". With thousands of japanese holed up where you absolutely would not see them until you stepped on them, on every island in and around Japan, it would have been a disaster to continute island hopping like they were. Every island would be packed with unafraid japanese killing many more Americans than what would be returned. Instead, the US decided it wasn't going to lose more troops than they already had and decided to end the war with 2 bombs. Please don't jump all over me saying it's immoral or whatever because I'm not talking about if it was right or not, just why we did.