Well, Hitler did have a shit load of nerve gas he could have deployed somewhere I think.
- 1
New cold war?
- Thread starter tyen
- Start date
- Status
yerm
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 6,789
- 17,428
It's the opposite of nobody will nuke because nobody will nuke back. Nobody will full conventional-only industrial war because the loser will still nuke back. Nukes don't just stave off nukes, they stave off anything that would result in nukes. Soviets rolling tanks towards Frankfurt would have gotten their asses nuked. NATO tanks parked in Warsaw would be nuked. So no nukes AND no conventional warfare that would lead to them.
This idea of world war 3 but nobody uses their nukes is pure fantasy. If someone is nuked OR if they THINK they are about to be nuked, they nuke back. That means a radar ping of a stealth bomber's flaps opening = we gon get nuked. An ICBM with a trajectory that possibly includes the enemy may as well be a nuke. Any ballistic fired from a sub. Any decent sized ballistic at all really. Or any bomber. Really basically anything bigger than a lunchbox that might end up within a few miles of a capital could be a nuke and is liable to be treated as one.
This idea of world war 3 but nobody uses their nukes is pure fantasy. If someone is nuked OR if they THINK they are about to be nuked, they nuke back. That means a radar ping of a stealth bomber's flaps opening = we gon get nuked. An ICBM with a trajectory that possibly includes the enemy may as well be a nuke. Any ballistic fired from a sub. Any decent sized ballistic at all really. Or any bomber. Really basically anything bigger than a lunchbox that might end up within a few miles of a capital could be a nuke and is liable to be treated as one.
- 2
pharmakos
soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
- 16,305
- -2,233
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 26,923
- 56,222
Didn't I read somewhere that if you know nukes are inevitable, it's better to first strike because you can get a lot of their launchers and maybe survive?
Which is why both countries ended up with like 5000 missiles so that a second strike would still assuredly wipe out the other side?
- 1
Oldbased
> Than U
- 28,558
- 67,669
I would be called crazy and rightfully so but I felt the shitty made movie GIJOE Retaliation did one part kind of right. The part where everyone launched their dick missiles at each other and then decided which would be the first to back down removing all of them in which all countries self destructed. Course then snakeman had to come along and drop fucking tungsten rods on people but totally irrelevant I know, but should one country commit, do you think it is possible to uncommit or is it game over at that point? I mean if someone pushed a button to blast the whole damn planet with no plans afterwards set up do you think it possible they stick around or are they running to some shelter like fuck this place?
By setup I mean having military/supplies/vehicles in place for the domination afterwards of what is left.
Russia, US nor anyone else would ever hit that button. Their own people or what was left would turn on them faster than any country could fly in to do.
Only terrorists would ever consider such a goal desirable. It does not mean a conventional war is out of the question though.
I don't often discuss World War 3, but I do I make sure it is with the best WoW players on the planet.
Keep your armchairs tight, beards shaved and most of all extra women locked in the cellar just in case.
We never know what tomorrow will bring.
By setup I mean having military/supplies/vehicles in place for the domination afterwards of what is left.
Russia, US nor anyone else would ever hit that button. Their own people or what was left would turn on them faster than any country could fly in to do.
Only terrorists would ever consider such a goal desirable. It does not mean a conventional war is out of the question though.
I don't often discuss World War 3, but I do I make sure it is with the best WoW players on the planet.
Keep your armchairs tight, beards shaved and most of all extra women locked in the cellar just in case.
We never know what tomorrow will bring.
- 1
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 26,923
- 56,222
- 2
Oldbased
> Than U
- 28,558
- 67,669
More expensive but I prefer the Mountain House buckets. 30 year life. Meals taste as good>resturant quality.
I really get Shelly all sorts of pissed off when I open one of those and pour in COLD water, let it sit 10 minutes and go damn woman, better than you make.
They are really good!( Except for people like me in heart failure, they are very bad!)
- 1
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 26,923
- 56,222
I don't believe for one second that if Russia hit Seattle with a nuke that our immediate response would not involve melting Moscow. From there, it's some combo of The Road and Fallout. I'm slightly concerned that everyone keeps talking about nukes like it's NBD but I really doubt anyone has the yolo in them to deploy one.
- 1
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 26,923
- 56,222
Gravel
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 41,798
- 143,423
Eh? No I didn't. Downturn isn't what we're talking about here. That'd just be a normal economic cycle.
He was talking about a reset of our financial system, basically starting over. In that scenario, it's just more work to build that wealth back up again. Why work to rebuild it when they've already got it?
- 1
tyen
EQ in a browser wait time: ____
- 4,638
- 5,176
B_Mizzle
Avatar of War Slayer
- 8,233
- 16,778
I think we would beat Russia in any kind of conventional war, but there would be losses. Then again maybe not, we have what a few hundred drones? How many drones would it take to defeat Russia's air defense systems? 1000? Just cost a whole lot of money to beat them down. Would Russia try to nuke the air bases launching them? I have to agree that any kind of real attacks on Russia would probably end up with some nukes being launched. Either way, I can't believe we as a species have come to this point again, where it seems like major war is just around the corner. Thanks Obama.
- 1
Sentagur
Low and to the left
- 3,825
- 7,937
Thank you.
A lot of people here don't realize the whole "We will go to war but neither of us will use nukes" approach is total foolishness.
It's not like Starcraft where you get a huge NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED message and then we retaliate, In reality any bomber they see or any missile we launch COULD be a nuclear weapon. They can't take the chance that it's the typical bombs and missiles that we rain down on the Middle East and if they let us Nuke them with out getting missiles in the air then we can wipe them out with out them firing back.
So if we go to war with Russia REAL war we would both be launching nukes in the first 15 minutes.
Hell I'm sure we could smuggle small nukes in drones and ram them into buildings in Moscow.
- 2
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Meh. I'm sure we both have nuclearweapons orbiting the earth ready to go if either is nuked and their land aresenal is unable to retaliate. Plus subs, plus probably some high altitude drones that just circle the globe.
- 2
- Status