- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
And you think that, because...?Umm, ok...
None of them?
And you think that, because...?Umm, ok...
None of them?
You did not answer the question.
Yes I did.. I voted "none of the above".. And I said the US would never give up their nukes, and even if they did, none of the above would. And if everyone or a few of them even claimed they gave them up they would still have "secret" nuke programs and "secret" ready nuclear weapons.
Thats what I tried to say.
And you think that, because...?
Anyone heard the phrase "Mutually Assured Destruction"?
:rofl
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. :wink: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.
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.
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.
this isn't WW2. Precision weapons and Fire and forget weapons are extremely accurate and destructive.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.
The ability to "flatten" a city is dependent upon the geographics, weather, and constitution of the city.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.
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.
:roll: because it would have been so muc better to have to invade Japan or have an iron curtain over it because of Russia.Its a shame we invented nukes.
not all life, just most of human life.They rendered the President more powerful than God, capable of destroying all life on earth.
I trust an elected official more than the ignorant masses. You got a better idea.Does anyone still believe in limited government, when the President can destroy everyone and everything with the push of a button?
:lol: 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.But we need them. Not because of the threat posed by any other nation. We need them in case of space invaders.
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. :wink:
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.
:lol:
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.
What military is stronger, and by what relevant measure?Actually the US military is quite weak, and conventional power at its peak in 2009 is still not strong by any measure.
There's not a military in history that the current US military could not soundly defeat.Some people claiming the US military is the most powerful ever and so on is just untrue if you compare with the rest of the world and the most powerful militarizes of the past compared with the rest of the world.
How does that mean the 'current military capabilities of the developed world' are not 'very strong'?The reality is such that we overestimate the current military capabilities of the developed world as very strong, when its actually not that strong at all. It would take years or decades for the US and Europe for example to win and conquer Russia or China together, and it would take a substantial part of our economies, and it would ruin things at home, in a conventional war, if we could ever do that, even together
Do you think that repeating your argument creates support for your argument?The US or Europe doing it alone is just unrealistic, because militaries arent really so strong as we think they are, and military budgets, efforts, equipment and such would need a massive upgrade and at least 25% of our GDP(and 25-50% national effort) to stand any chance at waging such a war.
"Defeating" Russia/China and "taking Russia/China completely" are extraordinarily different things. One need not accomplish the latter in order to accomplish the former.We would need at least 25-50 million man in armed forced to take Russia completely....
France has nukes???
... what other countries would follow suit?
Please state the reasons for you answer.
yes we will, when we invent something better :wink: nukes will be so passe then.The USA is never going to give up its nuclear arsenal.