Author Topic: The nuclear bomb debate. (Read 14424 times)

Isamu · « **Reply #20 on:** March 18, 2008, 09:32:32 PM »

or maybe to fight an intersteller war if that ever does happen. there is the possibility that bush used tactical nukes in iraq but no one can be sure because we have weapons that appear to be nukes and the radiation would scatter too quickly to be known.

strike23 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 18, 2008, 09:35:42 PM »

Quote from: Isamu on March 18, 2008, 09:32:32 PM

or maybe to fight an intersteller war if that ever does happen.

maybe, i have a feeling that nukes wouldn't be very useful against a species that is capable of interstellar travel (like in independence day).

Isamu · « **Reply #22 on:** March 18, 2008, 09:39:48 PM »

i believe otherwise. most people don't account the massive emp that eminates from a nuclear bomb explosion. at least the ships would be dead in space or something.

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 18, 2008, 09:46:37 PM »

If they are capable of interstellar travel, i think they understand the basics of nuclear physics and know about emp emission.....

Isamu · « **Reply #24 on:** March 18, 2008, 11:45:00 PM »

okay well nothing could stand up to thousands of nuclear detonations.

GrndAdmrlPellaeon · « **Reply #25 on:** March 19, 2008, 07:48:59 AM »

This is fun.

Meyer · « **Reply #26 on:** March 19, 2008, 09:27:18 AM »

I have to point out to our American nationalists that your precious missile defense system is never tested. you don't know if it really works. And I doubt it can handle thousands of missiles within minutes. And a nuke doesn't have to hit it's target to do damage. if a missile is destroyed while in flight it still causes nuclear waste and other hazardous things that are devastating.

And yes this is fun. And you know what would be even more fun? Watching nuclear war from your own telly. Now that would be fun.

Slornie · « **Reply #27 on:** March 19, 2008, 09:33:25 AM »

Also, the US Army couldnt take over the world. It is struggling with two small conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, so trying anything larger would be doomed to failure.

Oh, and while the US Navy is the largest individual navy, the combined navies of those countries opposed to an American world conquest attempt would greatly outnumber it.

Meyer · « **Reply #28 on:** March 19, 2008, 09:35:46 AM »

yes good point. USA army has troubles to bring peace in Iraq so I think that shows that your world conguest would be doomed from the beginning. Hell China and India can just send waves after waves of man against your troops. And eventually they would win. and if you would use nukes they would retaliate. And even all your nukes and missile defense systems wouldn't save you then.

vadereclipse · « **Reply #29 on:** March 19, 2008, 02:55:14 PM »

the only possible practical beneficial use for a nuke is to intercept an asteroid on a collision course with earth.

Isamu · « **Reply #30 on:** March 19, 2008, 05:51:35 PM »

Quote from: Slornie on March 19, 2008, 09:33:25 AM

Also, the US Army couldnt take over the world. It is struggling with two small conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, so trying anything larger would be doomed to failure.

Oh, and while the US Navy is the largest individual navy, the combined navies of those countries opposed to an American world conquest attempt would greatly outnumber it.

the american army is facing guerillas. no army is good at fighting that. and americans have no reason to try anything bigger since we are the most powerful nation on earth. anyways, a world government in my opinion would not work economically because all nations depend on foreign trade. also, I have a hard time believing america would use citykillers to conquer the world.

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 19, 2008, 10:16:40 PM »

US defense forces are the most potent fighting force in the world when fighting conventionally. You cant exactly use gunships to take out a couple terrorists within an allied city

Meyer · « **Reply #32 on:** March 20, 2008, 01:51:08 AM »

that's the point. You can't just suppose that the enemy surrenders after you take out the regular army. didn't learn anything from the WWII? La Resistance? rings any bells? If you think that fighting ends when you have conquered the country you are even more stupid than I thought. Conventional war. bah! you sound like british about the boer wars. I don't remember who it was who said that it was unfair of the boers to do surprise attacks and then retreat. They should have just stand in line and wait the british to shoot. them. So face it. USA isn't so powerful after all. you can defend yourself well. but you can't bring order to areas you have conquered. maybe you just should nuke anyone you don't like.

Slornie · « **Reply #33 on:** March 20, 2008, 07:17:39 AM »

Quote from: Isamu on March 19, 2008, 05:51:35 PM

the american army is facing guerillas. no army is good at fighting that. and americans have no reason to try anything bigger since we are the most powerful nation on earth. anyways, a world government in my opinion would not work economically because all nations depend on foreign trade. also, I have a hard time believing america would use citykillers to conquer the world.

The most powerful nation? With an economy on the verge of recession, fighting wars that it cant win, that tries to bully other nations and has a collective strop when it doesnt get its own way?

Meyer · « **Reply #34 on:** March 20, 2008, 09:07:50 AM »

That is weird. I mean that after all that is said that us is the most powerful and it can't even pacify a small nation and it's guerrilla warrior I think that says it all.

strike23 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 20, 2008, 12:11:02 PM »

the reason america is losing in iraq is because we are trying to help them rebuild. If we didn't care anout a country and they pissed us off too much theyd be screwd. even without nukes, we would crush their military and leave. no rebuilding process.just go in, blow stuff up and let them fend for themselves.

vadereclipse · « **Reply #36 on:** March 20, 2008, 01:33:23 PM »

iraq is a weak fledgling government. although i too am anti-iraq war, i believe the war to be a stalemate.

Meyer · « **Reply #37 on:** March 20, 2008, 04:40:29 PM »

Quote from: strike23 on March 20, 2008, 12:11:02 PM

the reason america is losing in iraq is because we are trying to help them rebuild. If we didn't care anout a country and they pissed us off too much theyd be screwd. even without nukes, we would crush their military and leave. no rebuilding process.just go in, blow stuff up and let them fend for themselves.

What military is there to be crushed? You're glorious army is being shamed by civilians!

Isamu · « **Reply #38 on:** March 20, 2008, 06:02:16 PM »

Quote from: Meyer on March 20, 2008, 01:51:08 AM

that's the point. You can't just suppose that the enemy surrenders after you take out the regular army. didn't learn anything from the WWII? La Resistance? rings any bells? If you think that fighting ends when you have conquered the country you are even more stupid than I thought. Conventional war. bah! you sound like british about the boer wars. I don't remember who it was who said that it was unfair of the boers to do surprise attacks and then retreat. They should have just stand in line and wait the british to shoot. them. So face it. USA isn't so powerful after all. you can defend yourself well. but you can't bring order to areas you have conquered. maybe you just should nuke anyone you don't like.

france wasn't the only country with partisan activity

strike23 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 20, 2008, 06:50:59 PM »

Quote from: Meyer on March 20, 2008, 04:40:29 PM

Quote from: strike23 on March 20, 2008, 12:11:02 PM
the reason america is losing in iraq is because we are trying to help them rebuild. If we didn't care anout a country and they pissed us off too much theyd be screwd. even without nukes, we would crush their military and leave. no rebuilding process.just go in, blow stuff up and let them fend for themselves.

What military is there to be crushed? You're glorious army is being shamed by civilians!

im not saying in iraq, iraq is a disaster. im saying that if a country like france/UK/Germany/Spain/Canada pissed off the U.S. they would get their asses handed to them. we could destroy everything essentially turning any country back to a third world country. the problem with this is that the rest of the world would get pissed off and it would be ethicless. im just saying our military is capable of it tho.