Nuclearo wrote:30%... That still leaves both with a few hundred nukes, and I say few because I don't remember the numbers right now. Does having 700 city wrecking ultra bombs make you any less overpowered than having 1000? I don't think so. It only took 2 to end the biggest conflict of our history. Granted, it was largely due to shock factor, but I don't think even if all of the state's enemies bound up for an all out war that they'd do it with even half those nukes at risk of landing in their collective territories (unless, of course, they're insane fanatics...).
I'm not really familiar with the North Korean deal, more than "they're communist extremists and building nukes", but if we switch out the word 'communist' with 'Muslim' we get that exact same thing but with Iran, just with a different schedule. So yeah, military action does seem like the only way at it given the fact that the leadership just won't communicate with you "American bastards" but you have to remember one thing: these aren't small poverty ridden dust speck countries whose standing military force consists of a camel and 2 dust bunnies. Military action in this case means war. REAL war, that goes 2 ways. YOUR house could be bombed just like all those houses in Iraq an Afghanistan. So yeah, just throwing bombs at it and hoping the problem dies won't really fix that, especially with the Iranian (and I'm guessing the Korean one too) being spread out, underground and well defended.
I will end this on a different note though, seemingly undermining everything I said in a double faced attempt in wisdom that will undoubtedly leave me utterly hypocritical:
We who fight for so called "freedom" are in reality very oppressed when it comes to warfare. When it comes to that, they are the true free ones.
Interpret that as you like, now give me those metal cuffs that I came for.
Fesselfan wrote:Just a side note...so far in history, only one country has ever used nukes in a war.
As much as I loathe any country to have these weapons...which right does i.e. the US or russia have to own these weapons that other countries have not?
Cheers
FF
aielen wrote:haloguy wrote:What do you think, the united states recently signed a bill saying that the USA and Russia will decrease their nuclear stockpiles by 30%. Meanwhile, according to one of their defecting nuclear scientists, north korea is preparing for a THIRD test of long range nuclear weapons.
Personally, if north korea gets hold of a couple of working nukes, than I think that the United states must take military action against them before they attempt to fire it upon my country, launch it into space as an orbital weapons platform, or hurtle it at a european or asian country.
handcuffs for your thoughts?
percentages are nothing. Russia still has a lrarger capability with road mobile ICBMs, lots of MIRVs despite the new START and Tu-160 bombers. The US has no nuclear capable supersonic bomber and has de-MIRVed all its landbased ICBMS which are not mobile.
Nuclearo wrote:Are you sure there aren't any extra zeros there? What do they need all those goddamn nukes for?! Those aren't suitcase nukes. They're megaton and above bombs. What, are we nuking empty enemy territories for fun now?
Also: lol boundgal.
Nuclearo wrote:Are you sure there aren't any extra zeros there? What do they need all those goddamn nukes for?! Those aren't suitcase nukes. They're megaton and above bombs. What, are we nuking empty enemy territories for fun now?
Also: lol boundgal.
haloguy wrote:Nuclearo wrote:Are you sure there aren't any extra zeros there? What do they need all those goddamn nukes for?! Those aren't suitcase nukes. They're megaton and above bombs. What, are we nuking empty enemy territories for fun now?
Also: lol boundgal.
the more nukes you've got, the more threatening you look
haloguy wrote:lol, I laff kuz eet eez funnee!