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?

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?

I certainly hadn't but the claim is quite silly given
that anyone with ICBMs or submarine launched
nukes could have done it anytime, and still can.

In fact it would have been a hell of a lot more surprising
if no nuke bombers had got thru in that war game.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 07:40:49 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

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.

wrote in message
...
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.

That's not the reason there are 15K warheads.

There is a wide variety of different types so that there is
what is suitable for all possible scenarios, everything from
just nuking Kim Jong Un back to the stone age if it looks
likely that he is about to nuke someone to the best
deterrent for another world war the world has ever
seen which has in fact been far more effective than
anything else the world has ever seen world war wise.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:15:49 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

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.

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. 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.
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).

On 26/02/2021 06:21, wrote:
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. 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.
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).

You missed the point completely. We were asked by the US to test your
defences, we did and we beat it....twice. You should be thankful that we
found flaws so you could repair that flaw for your country's safety.
The point was, if we could do it so could the Russians.
Instead of thanking us you immediately replied with how you could
obliterate us.
That is unfriendly and very unhelpful.

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 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.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 07:10:57 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 26/02/2021 06:21, wrote:
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. 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.
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).

You missed the point completely. We were asked by the US to test your
defences, we did and we beat it....twice. You should be thankful that we
found flaws so you could repair that flaw for your country's safety.
The point was, if we could do it so could the Russians.
Instead of thanking us you immediately replied with how you could
obliterate us.
That is unfriendly and very unhelpful.

Perhaps you never heard of Mutually Assured Destruction. That is
basically our whole defense plan. Everyone but Reagan understood there
is really no 100% way of stopping a modern power from delivering a
percentage of their firepower. This exercise just demonstrated that.

When you think of it, Star Wars didn't even work in the movie. They
found a hole and dropped the bomb in it.

This wasn't a slam on the UK, simply a dose of reality.

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.

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.

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 4:25:35 PM UTC-5, 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.

And if we've learned anything from history it's that periodically some nut
comes along that doesn't care what happens to their country because they
are deranged and badly miscalculate. Hitler and Saddam are two examples.
It's also taught us that once we have weapons, eventually they are used.
Which is why KJU having nukes and increasing them is extremely problematic.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Bod wrote
wrote
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,

Odd, could have sworn that there was a lot less of that
than there was with the firestorm bombing in WW2.

it just didn't win the war.

Funny that. It did when the russians did it with Grozny.

You buggers are slipping.

None were actually a result of an attack on the US tho
since we were not attacked by any of those countries.

Could have SWORN that 911 was just that.

We just injected ourselves in someone else's civil war

Utterly mangled all over again with Iraq.

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).

More utterly mindless pig ignorant **** from you with Korea.

In the middle east we were injecting ourselves in a religious war.

More utterly mindless pig ignorant **** from you. That came later.

That is even more futile.

Odd, could have sworn it worked in the old europe.

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

Like hell I did with that stupid line of yours.

and then say it is wrong. None of these examples
really have anything to do with the WWIII scenario
Bod was talking about tho.

Yep, I was commenting on your stupid claim about
the USA's defence strategy. It isnt just about nukes.

A nuclear attack by a country would be
responded to with an all out nuclear response.

Bull**** in the sense of firing off all the 15K nukes
if say Kim Jong Un fired a nuke into south Korea.

The open question is how we would
deal with a terrorist nuclear attack.

It certainly wouldn't be by firing off all 15K nukes the USA has.

Based on past performance I am sure we would nuke someone.

More fool you.

It might just be unclear who the unlucky loser should be.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

"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.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 4:25:35 PM UTC-5, 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.

And if we've learned anything from history it's that periodically some nut
comes along that doesn't care what happens to their country because they
are deranged and badly miscalculate. Hitler and Saddam are two examples.

It's also taught us that once we have weapons, eventually they are used.

Thats bull****.

Which is why KJU having nukes and increasing them is extremely
problematic.

More bull****. He has them so that the USA won't be stupid enough to ****
him over like it has with Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama City, Grenada etc etc
etc.

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. That is the basis of
M.A.D.
There is no winning a nuclear war. After you get over 1000 warheads
going off, life on the planet will never be the same. It will take our
mind off that global warming tho. Snowing on the equator is a
possibility but the snow will glow in the dark.

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.
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.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 03:50:32 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread


--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

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 and the radiation would be world wide.

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.

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****.