Excuse me? you cannot prove a negaytive, go on I dare you to try.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Grasping for a hold on the argument? Just admit it that in all practical purposes, its virtually useless to wonder about a conventional war because it would simply not happen. Someone, somewhere would launch even if the crews everywhere refused or something, and then you'd have it. Just admit the idea of conventional war is ludicrious, because it is.Stuart Mackey wrote:Nuclear weapons were and are a constant threat, however their use, or rather, the political determination to use them is unknowable by anyone on this board and I would suggest any other {unless Maggie Thatcher is lurking somewhere..}, you cannot prove a negative, esp in this instance when there is some historical insight as other possibilitys.
Were chemical weapons used in combat during WW2? no, go away and have a think about why not. Given the overall cost of nuclear war and and the fact that it never happened suggests that neither you nor anyone else can say that it would. Warfare could drag out for years between NATO and Warsaw Pact nations without nuclear exchange simply beacause politians may choose not to use them, they may choose not to out of some perverce sence of self preservation. That nations have such waepons does not mean they must be used.
