wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 03:50:32 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

Unlikely that they would be that stupid.

So don't be so cock sure. Everyone will be a loser.

Not everyone, its a tad unlikely that anyone would
bother to nuke New Zealand or Tonga etc.

If there was a full exchange between the US and
Russia, Australia and New Zealand would just be
part of the Antarctic when we got the nuclear winter

More pig ignorant bull****. That wouldnt happen in the southern hemisphere.

and the radiation would be world wide.

More pig ignorant bull****.