wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:16:43 +0000, Bod wrote:
On 26/02/2021 13:04, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 19:56:46 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 06:02:52 +0000, Bod wrote:
On 25/02/2021 21:25, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 19:25:28 +0000, Bod
wrote:
It was an exercise of course, to test the US defences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Q_B-yaJrU
Did many of you know about this?
Our defence (see what I did there?) seems to be "We can take a
punch,
then we will turn your country into smoking radioactive rubble.
After
that we will nuke the rubble, just to be sure".
We don't have 15,000 war heads for nothing.
You sound like a little kid talking big. The whole exercise was to
test
the USs defence against a possible Russian attack during the cold
war.
We are allies, remember. It was for the greater good, not who was the
toughest etc.
Unfortunately that is our defense strategy.
Bull**** it is.
Otherwise we would not only have the most conventional
weapons, we have the most nuclear ones too with excellent
ways to deliver both of them.
Worked real well in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We blew the **** out of them, it just didn't win the war.
None were actually a result of an attack on the US tho since we were
not attacked by any of those countries. We just injected ourselves in
someone else's civil war and that seldom works particularly in the
cases of Vietnam and Korea since we were actually fighting a country
we went out of our way not to attack. (The USSR and/or China).
In the middle east we were injecting ourselves in a religious war.
That is even more futile.
We just get screwed when an Asymmetric Warfare group attacks us
with no actual target to retaliate against so we just go blow up some
unrelated (Iraq) or tangentially connected country. (Afghanistan).
Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.
Funny how you give the same examples and then say it is wrong.
None of these examples really have anything to do with the WWIII
scenario Bod was talking about tho. A nuclear attack by a country
would be responded to with an all out nuclear response.
The open question is how we would deal with a terrorist nuclear
attack. Based on past performance I am sure we would nuke someone. It
might just be unclear who the unlucky loser should be.
No one wins if the US nukes, say, Russia. Russia has at least as many
nukes as the US, if not more. You would then see China nuking the US.
So don't be so cock sure. Everyone will be a loser.
Everyone will be the loser is the right answer.
Bull****. It wasn't true of ww2 and wouldn't be with that either.
That is the basis of M.A.D.
Wrong again, that's about it not happening.
There is no winning a nuclear war.
That depends on what the other side has.
It would have worked if the USA had nuked russia before they had nukes.
After you get over 1000 warheads going off,
life on the planet will never be the same.
That depends on where they go off and if that many go off.
It will take our mind off that global warming tho.
Snowing on the equator is a possibility
Bull****.
but the snow will glow in the dark.
More bull****. None of the test sites ever did.
That is why I don't take any nuclear war game seriously.
I hope Iran and North Korea understand that.
We could level Tehran or Pyongyang in response to an
attack from them and if China and Russia stood down
we would survive but that is not likely.
Its much less likely they would commit suicide by launching all theirs.
What happens if Iran nukes Israel or NK
nukes Japan is still an open question.
Israel can throw their own nukes back but we might be obligated to
retaliate for Japan, assuming they don't have a secret program nobody
is talking about. That genie has been out of the bag for a long time
and the Japanese have the know how to do it.
But have chosen not to. Unlike Israel.
Kim Jong Un has nukes so that the USA wont be stupid enough to ****
him over like it has Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama City, Grenada etc etc etc.
He wont be nuking anyone if he isnt ****ed over, you watch.