$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', 'A') lack of retaliation against a perceived/accidental "attack" is not the samething as restraint during an actual attack. Nor does a history of successfully averted mishaps guarentee us a future secure from the possibility of accidental war, nuclear or otherwise.
If and when the missles and bombs start flying, they'll be flying in both directions.
PeakOil is You
Finally, the cheap and available way to replace oil.
Re: Finally, the cheap and available way to replace oil.
by PolestaR » Sun 11 Feb 2007, 06:08:49
Who is to say they aren't the same when viewed from the people who make the decisions perspectives? Of course they aren't the same in theory, but who makes the decision, and why wasn't it made already? Is it because they rang the USSR and they said "No we haven't launched" ?
I never said it guaranteed anything, I gave it a 50% chance of no one retaliating, until they hit at least, hehe.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', 'H')undreds of dispersed nukes across our country targeted at significant population centers, transportation nodes, refinery clusters, civilian nuclear plants and other vital areas would still kill millions in short order and deal a death blow to a functioning country. I mean realistically if the US couldnt even respond to Katrina, how would it cope if multiplied by a factor of 400, even if they were small nukes. Yeah most people would survive the original attack. Far more would die in the unrest/famine/disease of the aftermath.
We havent even gotten into the possibility for a high-level detonation in the Ionisphere for maximum EMP devastation to electronic infrastructure.
Again, "only" taking 400 hits when your opponent took 800 is NOT a victory. Even if they were only piddly little small nukes.
400 - 125KT nukes - delivered to the USA would probably kill approx 50-70% within 24 hours if the targets were cities. Of course I think even in this state the USA could still launch in return after being bombed like that. Though who they would choose to fire at when all their info is gone is up for debate. A much wider, precise attack would have to take place to stop 90% of the return volley, only Russia atm could deliver that.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', 'T')he only nuclear weapon use that DOES make sense is:
1) A nuclear armed aggressor uses nuclear weapons tactically against a NON-Nuclear state to acheive total and unambiguous victory.
2) A nuclear armed terrorist group uses a nuclear weapon for maximum shock value against a nuclear or non nuclear power.
That's it. I guarentee the US won't attack Iran if they were a country capable of responding back with nuclear weapons, hitting us or our interests.
Depends really. If China or Russia (or both) successfully got in a first strike before the USA could return anything, the likelihood of them being destroyed in the return volley is much less. By telling their populations to disperse from major centers and get under cover they could survive the limited return. A successful first strike would have removed some of the USA's capability to attack, though unlikely all of it. And with the USA crippled the conventional war machine can do nothing.
There is more talk about first strike nukes than the armies of the world let on. Some generals believe it a viable strategy, and there is a reason for that, regardless of what John Lennon types want to believe.
Bringing sexy back..... to doom
- PolestaR
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 955
- Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Finally, the cheap and available way to replace oil.
by pea-jay » Sun 11 Feb 2007, 07:00:17
Agree with your initial point, but
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '
')400 - 125KT nukes - delivered to the USA would probably kill approx 50-70% within 24 hours if the targets were cities. Of course I think even in this state the USA could still launch in return after being bombed like that. Though who they would choose to fire at when all their info is gone is up for debate. A much wider, precise attack would have to take place to stop 90% of the return volley, only Russia atm could deliver that.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '
')400 - 125KT nukes - delivered to the USA would probably kill approx 50-70% within 24 hours if the targets were cities. Of course I think even in this state the USA could still launch in return after being bombed like that. Though who they would choose to fire at when all their info is gone is up for debate. A much wider, precise attack would have to take place to stop 90% of the return volley, only Russia atm could deliver that.
And this is a victory how?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '
')Depends really. If China or Russia (or both) successfully got in a first strike before the USA could return anything, the likelihood of them being destroyed in the return volley is much less. By telling their populations to disperse from major centers and get under cover they could survive the limited return. A successful first strike would have removed some of the USA's capability to attack, though unlikely all of it. And with the USA crippled the conventional war machine can do nothing.
This makes no logical sense.
Mass evacuations for no apparent reason (to us) will set off alarm bells in Langley and Arlington. China moving hundred million or more from its cities? Mindnumbingly cumbersome. US would examine and most likely discover evidence of a preemptive attack and either initate one or atleast prepare for one. Kinda takes the suprise out of a "suprise" attack doesnt it?
An overwhelming attack isnt really in the cards for china, though they could certainly do damage. Russia may still be able to swing it BUT... taking out our cities, infrastructure isnt the same as taking out our missle launch capability. That stuff is hidden away or completely mobile. Or under the sea. As bad as things have gone in Iraq for us, I doubt the same can be said for the nuke guys. I have full faith that if we take a lickin, so will our aggressors.
I do agree our conventional response capabilities will be hammered beyond belief though. Doesn't matter really. After that level of exchange we're not going to be fighting the chinese in Asia or on the west coast. The only thing we will fight after that point is for our survival. Ditto for the Chinese or russians.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '
')There is more talk about first strike nukes than the armies of the world let on. Some generals believe it a viable strategy, and there is a reason for that, regardless of what John Lennon types want to believe.
Unless your first striking a country that cant strike you back, sorry, I'm not convinced.
UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
