Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: U.S.A and Russia's Nuclear Capability
frenk    2/3/2005 1:39:48 AM
if this two nations gets angry to each other and goes to nuclear war...which we hope wouldnt happen...who has the capability of winning the the nuclear war? frenk
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
gixxxerking    RE:casualties and casulties   2/13/2005 6:27:56 PM
Elcid you know no more than I do about the effects of nuclear war. But what I do know is that when Nuclear war happened(1945) it wasnt as catastrophic as you suggest. Fact is, whether you like it or not, nuclear wars are comming. Too many nuclear armed nations with grudges. So we had better be prepared to win these wars that cant be won. P.S. I was born in L.A., anything to get rid of some of the traffic!
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    whether you like it or not, nuclear wars are comming.   2/13/2005 11:21:33 PM
Surprise, surprise, I actually agree with Gix on some aspect of nuclear warfare. Two points in one post - where is my heart medicine? Yes, nuclear war was not catastrophic in 1945. [Correction: not catastrophic for the world. It was pretty catistrophic at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.] Why not? In the whole world there was only ONE other nuclear weapon, and the USA had it. [Orders to use it were already issued. In order to insure it was not used, a vital part of the bomb was intercepted.] There was no way to "escalate" because there were no other nuclear powers. There was no way to use so many US weapons it would cause a climatic disaster, because we had almost none, and could not make them fast (maybe 5 more Fat Man type in November and December). There was no way to start a long distance firestorm because Japan is narrow and surrounded by water. So the fact the 1945 war was not too bad for us is not related to the present world. The present strategic realities dictate present strategic policy. Nuclear warfare between significant nuclear powers is indeed NOT winnable, and everyone directly involved needs to come to terms with that. But there is ANOTHER kind of nuclear warfare. Nuclear warfare not involving two nuclear powers, but only one, or none. If we used a nuclear weapon to bust a bunker in a non-nuclear war, it will not destroy the environment or trigger a nuclear reply. It almost certainly WILL DEFEAT US, though. Gen Westmoreland had a plan to use tactical nuclear weapons at Ke Sahn, but it was vetoed by President Johnson, so we would not create a political firestorm at home and abroad. I do not worry much about this sort of thing happening - no President is going to be the first to use nuclear weapons since WWII. I don't care if it even is a good idea, it ain't gonna happen, because it really would defeat us, and President's, being political creatures, won't do that on purpose. But what about NO nuclear power? What if AQ steals or buys a nuke? They are not a country, and it is hard to retailiate against a non-country. It also won't mess up the world ecology or economy very much either. But this kind of nuclear war IS coming. By not disarming North Korea and Pakistan for violating the NPT, we insure this will happen, sooner or later. Both engaged in arms trading, and nuclear arms component trading, and one day, when they have enough, they will sell some. I actually expect to lose NYC and DC in this way. THEN we will get serious about NPT violators. But do not think that this changes the basic nuclear facts of life: we cannot win a nuclear war and we won't be starting one with even a power like PRC. I am glad that professionals, liberal, conservative, independent, military, civilian, academic, all agree on this. I am going to add to my prayer list "thank you Lord that Gix is not in charge of nuclear policy."
 
Quote    Reply

azmike    RE:whether you like it or not, nuclear wars are comming.   2/14/2005 12:31:14 AM
"But what about NO nuclear power? What if AQ steals or buys a nuke? They are not a country, and it is hard to retailiate against a non-country." I was under the impression that the US would hold the manufacturer of any nuclear weapon used against them responcible. I assumed that the weapon would leave some kind of fingerprint as to which nation created it. Hard to say for sure, but nuking the capital of this country may make them rethink violating NPT?
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:whether you like it or not, nuclear wars are comming.   2/14/2005 3:17:28 AM
Thats doesn't mean that they will nuke the manufacturer of the nuke. They would probably get really pissed off and maybe launch a retalitory conventional strike.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Pyongyang and Tehran   2/14/2005 3:17:56 AM
You better be glad im not in charge. Because those cities would be vaporized by tomorrow if I was. Pakistan and India would be next if they didnt IMEDIATELY disarm. Why do this? Better to lose these cities now than DC and NYC later. And later is now. Nuclear wars are comming. And I would rather be the one giving than taking. These wars are quite winnable but I will agree that it would be at great cost. But Great cost is inevitable if we do nothing. And we have a means to do something. That something is to show the world we mean it when we say no nukes. IMO.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Pyongyang and Tehran   2/14/2005 6:19:19 AM
two words gix, fking crazy. If the US nuked NK and Iran all hell would break loose. Even if a container ship in NY didn't erupt into a mushroom cloud some time afterwards you've just created a whole bucket load of people who will really really really hate the US AND for good reason. In the long run the US would loose. You can't go indiscriminately killing millions upon millions of people these days, to do that is ruinous to any nation.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Pyongyang and Tehran   2/14/2005 1:09:40 PM
There is already a bucket load of hate. That ship will be comming to a US port no matter what. So why wait? We didnt wait in WW II. Why wait now? Lets do what has to be done on our own terms. Hell No nation is going to supply fissile materials after this. Analysis would easily determine the source. Do you think we would hesistate to retaliate? I anyone in a possition to stop the US? The answers are no. Doing what is necessary requires courage and strength. At a minimum we should bomb Iran conventionally. But why when a single Trident or B-2 sortie can end this fight before it starts. Because millions of "non americans" will die? As opposed to millions of non american and millions of Americans after they strike first. I choose option 1. You will see in time I am right.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Pyongyang and Tehran   2/14/2005 7:34:58 PM
You don't understand. You would have the whole world turn against the US. People would be alot more sympathetic to terrorists. Nuking Tehran would make getting hold of a nuke easier for terrorists. People would be more willing to assist them. For once they would have a good reason to attack the US. Nuking an innocent city would do to the US what it would do to the terrorists if they did it. Using nuclear weapons on innocent civilians would just escalate the conflict. How can you even contemplate removing a city off the face of the earth. WW2 was an entirely different situation. There was no risk of retaliation and it was done to save lives both of the enemy and our own. Dropping nuclear bombs on Tehran wouldn't save anyones lives, it's just insanity. Do you honestly think the US would nuke moscow if it found out one of their nukes had fallen into enemy hands. What does that achieve.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Pyongyang and Tehran   2/14/2005 10:07:43 PM
Sure it would save lives. American lives. Either we have to attack Iran eventually or they get nukes. Why not just do both. Nuke em. Its no different than Hiroshima. No one will try to retaliate with nukes. If a non government entity tries we will know where the material came from. You dont really believe that the source nations dont know who they sold to do you?
 
Quote    Reply

EddieV    RE:Pyongyang and Tehran   2/15/2005 10:40:53 AM
Nuking Iran and NK targeting civilians would put the US in the same level as the AQ terrorists. Sorry but I don’t buy your premise. Maybe someday war will be upon us and maybe America will be pushed into using her nuclear arsenal against some rogue nation, but I still don’t believe indiscriminate murdering of innocent civilians is the way to go. Do you believe the regular Joes on Teheran deserve to die because of the action of their government (a government they likely didn’t elect)? Do you believe all those poor subjects in NK deserve to die because they are living under the boot of a madman?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics