View Poll Results: See OP

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • The UK

    3 8.33%
  • France

    4 11.11%
  • Russia

    2 5.56%
  • China

    2 5.56%
  • India

    1 2.78%
  • Pakistan

    0 0%
  • Israel

    0 0%
  • North Korea

    1 2.78%
  • Iran (once they get them)

    0 0%
  • None of the above

    31 86.11%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45

Thread: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

  1. #31
    buttonpsi
    Guest

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    Anyone heard the phrase "Mutually Assured Destruction"?


  2. #32
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 12:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    Quote Originally Posted by buttonpsi View Post
    Anyone heard the phrase "Mutually Assured Destruction"?

    But .... that is so ..... MAD ... or something.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #33
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    09-24-16 @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    986

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    USA giving up it's nukes is of course not realistic or that other countries would follow if USA did. But if USA drasticly reduced it's numbers of nukes, England, France, Russia and probably China would also follow. Making the world more safe by lessen the risk of nukes getting stolen and end up in the wrong hands. Ecpecially sens Russia and China can risk internal turmoil. If the worst case scenario happens it would also be much better for mankind if hundred missiles went of instead of thousand.

    That it's really no reason for USA to have thousands of nukes. That USA could flatten all the major cities in a countries with conventional weapons and finish the job with a few nukes if they like to go for overkill. That in today world is no reason for having absurd numbers of nukes. This is something both China and Russia could understand. If this happen greater pressure could be put on both India and Pakistan. North Korea would be tougher but reducing the numbers of nukes in the world could reduce the risk of other rouge states or terrorist getting their hands on them. But of course I'm not talking about zero nukes. That a first step would be that USA and Russia reduced the arsenal to less then thousands nukes. And that China at least didn't get anymore or more preferly reduced their in size.

    List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  4. #34
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergslagstroll View Post
    That it's really no reason for USA to have thousands of nukes. That USA could flatten all the major cities in a countries with conventional weapons and finish the job with a few nukes if they like to go for overkill. That in today world is no reason for having absurd numbers of nukes.
    Something we learned from the Russians is that you don't actually have to possess a capability as long as your enemies are kept at bay with the belief that you do.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  5. #35
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    03-10-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergslagstroll View Post
    USA giving up it's nukes is of course not realistic or that other countries would follow if USA did. But if USA drasticly reduced it's numbers of nukes, England, France, Russia and probably China would also follow.
    Why would France and England reduce their arsenal of 350 nukes if the US and Russia reduced theirs to below 1000? I think this is an unrealistic assessment since French and British nuclear arsenals are relatively small and trimmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergslagstroll View Post
    That it's really no reason for USA to have thousands of nukes. That USA could flatten all the major cities in a countries with conventional weapons and finish the job with a few nukes if they like to go for overkill.


    You really believe that? What country are you talking about? The US ability to project such power with conventional weapons, except in Canada and central America is rather limited.

    And you also have to take into consideration that if the US tried such tactics on any large country it would also have to fight war against the country, and wars in the air, which would greatly reduce such a chance. Take Russia of China for example, if the US tried to flatten any of their cities with conventional weapons there would be war with equals, and most likely nuclear responses. So to think the US could flatten any cities with conventional weapons is ridiculous, they are completely dependent on nuclear weapons for any such tasks.

    Do you even know how much firepower it take to flatten a major city with only regular bombings? Even with 100 planes that constantly go back and forward to bomb a city it would take days to flatten a city. If that city was anywhere across the pacific or the Atlantic the amount of time would increase enormously.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  6. #36
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    You really believe that? What country are you talking about? The US ability to project such power with conventional weapons, except in Canada and central America is rather limited.

    And you also have to take into consideration that if the US tried such tactics on any large country it would also have to fight war against the country, and wars in the air, which would greatly reduce such a chance. Take Russia of China for example, if the US tried to flatten any of their cities with conventional weapons there would be war with equals, and most likely nuclear responses. So to think the US could flatten any cities with conventional weapons is ridiculous, they are completely dependent on nuclear weapons for any such tasks.
    this isn't WW2. Precision weapons and Fire and forget weapons are extremely accurate and destructive.

    Ever heard of a "daisy cutter"? Technically its a "conventional" weapon.

    Do you even know how much firepower it take to flatten a major city with only regular bombings? Even with 100 planes that constantly go back and forward to bomb a city it would take days to flatten a city. If that city was anywhere across the pacific or the Atlantic the amount of time would increase enormously.
    The ability to "flatten" a city is dependent upon the geographics, weather, and constitution of the city.

    A single fire left unattended can destroy an entire city but elsewhere a nuclear weapon can cause only limited damage if hills and mountains absorb the blast from reaching other parts of the city.

    So when you say "flatten" a city I'm not quite sure what you mean. But I am fairly certain that conventional weapons have grown extrodinarily powerful such that cities can be widely destroyed without such massive bombings or use of nuclear weapons as you suggest.

    That is, weapons are damn scary these days because they are extremely accurate and more destructive.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  7. #37
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    03-10-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    this isn't WW2. Precision weapons and Fire and forget weapons are extremely accurate and destructive.

    Ever heard of a "daisy cutter"? Technically its a "conventional" weapon.

    The ability to "flatten" a city is dependent upon the geographics, weather, and constitution of the city.

    A single fire left unattended can destroy an entire city but elsewhere a nuclear weapon can cause only limited damage if hills and mountains absorb the blast from reaching other parts of the city.

    So when you say "flatten" a city I'm not quite sure what you mean. But I am fairly certain that conventional weapons have grown extrodinarily powerful such that cities can be widely destroyed without such massive bombings or use of nuclear weapons as you suggest.

    That is, weapons are damn scary these days because they are extremely accurate and more destructive.
    I dont know what I mean by flatten city. It was berglagstroll who used the expression, I assumed "bomb to complete destruction" and literally flatten..

    Any missiles for such use would cause war, and it would take massive amounts of missiles to inflict the same damage upon a city as nuclear missiles.
    I think he was talking about air strikes in the first place since long range missiles are rather limited in numbers.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  8. #38
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sacramento California
    Last Seen
    08-06-11 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    706

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    Its a shame we invented nukes. They rendered the President more powerful than God, capable of destroying all life on earth. Does anyone still believe in limited government, when the President can destroy everyone and everything with the push of a button?
    But we need them. Not because of the threat posed by any other nation. We need them in case of space invaders.
    "We may have destroyed this country, but we got rich doing it!" --The GOP
    There is a special place in hell for those who care only about themselves.

  9. #39
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    Quote Originally Posted by faminedynasty View Post
    Its a shame we invented nukes.
    because it would have been so muc better to have to invade Japan or have an iron curtain over it because of Russia.

    They rendered the President more powerful than God, capable of destroying all life on earth.
    not all life, just most of human life.

    Does anyone still believe in limited government, when the President can destroy everyone and everything with the push of a button?
    I trust an elected official more than the ignorant masses. You got a better idea.
    But we need them. Not because of the threat posed by any other nation. We need them in case of space invaders.
    what makes you think a civilization so advanced that it could travel the universe would be scared of nukes? That's like a neanderthal believing that his spear will be an effective weapon against a tank.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  10. #40
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    09-24-16 @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    986

    Re: If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Something we learned from the Russians is that you don't actually have to possess a capability as long as your enemies are kept at bay with the belief that you do.
    But it also led to MAD became really mad. The fear that the other side had more nukes then you and that you needed get more to prevent a sneak atack led to crazy spiral of more and more nukes. Like the last scene from doctor strange then dooms day are at hand, that the first things they need for their caves is nukes so they can prevent a sneak attack from the other sides cave.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Why would France and England reduce their arsenal of 350 nukes if the US and Russia reduced theirs to below 1000? I think this is an unrealistic assessment since French and British nuclear arsenals are relatively small and trimmed.
    International pressure and reduced threath. That if USA and Russia started a serious downsize of their nuclear arsenal France and England would probably follow even if they kept most of their nukes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post


    You really believe that? What country are you talking about? The US ability to project such power with conventional weapons, except in Canada and central America is rather limited.

    And you also have to take into consideration that if the US tried such tactics on any large country it would also have to fight war against the country, and wars in the air, which would greatly reduce such a chance. Take Russia of China for example, if the US tried to flatten any of their cities with conventional weapons there would be war with equals, and most likely nuclear responses. So to think the US could flatten any cities with conventional weapons is ridiculous, they are completely dependent on nuclear weapons for any such tasks.

    Do you even know how much firepower it take to flatten a major city with only regular bombings? Even with 100 planes that constantly go back and forward to bomb a city it would take days to flatten a city. If that city was anywhere across the pacific or the Atlantic the amount of time would increase enormously.
    I'm not any expert on the subject and I could have prashed the post better. Still USA stands for almost half the world military spending and including USA allies two thirds of the worlds spending. That at the same time the power of conventional weapons have increase drasticly sens the WW2. So if any countries launched nukes against USA, the retaliation with regular weapon should be catastrophic to that country ecpecially sens then all glows are off. That conventional weapon could probably do as a deterrent. If USA wanted nukes to be certain it at least doesn't needs thousands of them.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •