So what? You said that no non-nuclear state had ever attacked a nuclear one. Period. Now you are trying every qualifying factor that you can come up with to avoid admitting you were wrong.
For instance . . . Argentina attacking, invading, and occupying the Falkland Islands, sovereign territory of Britain, a nuclear power.
its like the thread about the underwear bomber. the question was asked, why was he allowed on a plane without a passport, but he had a passport, which i said like 10 times, always ignored, and the original question repeated. red could list a billion examples and it wont matter.
I was just trying to understand his definition of an "operational act of aggression". I've never heard that phrase before.
I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. China defending its border is not an act of aggression. If you dipchits are not intelligent enough to be able to understand that than I cannot help you. Period. Try being honest about a subject....it makes it for much more reasonable discussion.
I've never heard it either. Attack was obviously too broad a term. People listing Chinese involvement in the Korean war as an attack on a nuclear power is the ****ing stupidest thing I've ever heard. That was a defensive act on China's part. Also, the Falkland Islands was a territorial dispute. I'll have to take them one at a time, though.
You mean even more stupid than the assertion that US government orchestrated the mass murder of thousands of its citizens for no apparent reason? Is it more stupid than than the assertion that Osama Bin Laden has been dead for years in light of the treasure trove of evidence that he was killed last weekend? Is it more stupid than any of the other things you believe? Yes. It was won that started when non-nuclear Argentina started sabre rattling and attacked nuclear powered Britain's sovereign territory.
The US gov't has legalized the murdering of babies in the womb at the consent of their own mother. Millions of them have died and the US gov't champions the "reproductive rights of women". Do you dispute that? If that is true then what in God's name makes you think they would shy away from killing a few thousand people in their quest to expand the American Empire? What evidence that Bin Laden was killed last week? You mean like a body?
"Operational act of aggression" was a phrase you used. I'm simply attempting to understand what it means. War exists on three levels: tactical, operational and strategic. Placed in context, the term "operational" has no relevance. An act of aggression can be actual or perceived. In this case, an actual act of aggression would be the US attacking into Chinese sovereign territory, which would trigger a Chinese counter-attack against the US. The Chinese perceived an act of aggression by the US as US troops crossed the 38th parallel. As a result, the Chinese crossed their own border and attacked US troops in another nation's sovereign territory. The US possessed atomic weapons, the Chinese did not. As far as the Falklands, whether Argentina thought the Falkland Islands belonged to them is irrelevant. It was indeed British territory.
I will have to stick to the China/Korea issue first. Maybe I will start a thread on the Falkland....that's a more complicated issue. Your clarifications are much appreciated. Obviously I am using terminology which is not accurate. I am admittedly an amateur observer. Your point that the word "operational" has no relevance is quite correct. It was an attempt to come up with another phrase besides "attack" which was a stupid way to phrase my original point. But the US/UN forces were in fact near the Yalu River, weren't they? If they had not been so far north I don't think the Chinese would have become involved. This seems to me to be an act of self defense on the part of China. I am not sure what terminology would best describe that but if someone I perceive as wanting to do me harm is climbing over my fence and I shoot him, I would characterize that as an act of self defense.
