US can win a nuclear war

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Is it possible? Is it crazy? Is the Bush administration capable of such an atrocity? Of course. And they say it themselves.

In a article titled ‘The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy,’ in the March/April 2006 Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the author, Kier Lieber made the following claim:


‘Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.

So they think it's possible to win a ``nuclear war``. Because, how wipe out missile silos and bunkers without at least nuclear bunker buster missiles?


This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.


Are they implying pre-emptive strike? I think so, with their new military doctrine of pre-emptive wars and crap like this.

Also, the missile shield would serve in case of first strike from the US against Russia and China, they would have few nukes left to counter-strike, and the missile shield would stop them. Because, the missile shield isn't worth the cost if it's just for protect from North Korea or Iran, they can't launch a nuke at the US, it's near impossible.

Also, Iran, North Korea and Georgia are proxies war between the US and Russia/China.

So I tend to believe the non-working missile shield for offensive purpose rather than defensives ones. So I think that if they get the missile shield working and they feel like ruling the world, they might try it, anyway they have their bunkers, their slaves, their money and they don't care about the rest of the world if it's to take over it. And they want to reduce the world population.

The cold war isn't finish, they fight for global supremacy, this administration seems to fear nothing to win, not even a nuclear war they could possibly believe they own crap and strike to win. Any thoughts on that?

[edit on 7-10-2006 by Vitchilo]




posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
The missile shield is a white elephant, it does not work....the controllers have to tell it where to go...but the contractors and fantasist's in power love it (oink oink oink) but what do they know? They have no connection to reality. It is why I hate ideologues of any ilk. They always become blinded by their own ideologies. Even if only one nation fires their missiles there are no winners in nuclear war, only losers, all of humanity.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Lets be very clear about this:

No one wins in a nuclear war...no one.

(Except for the few people that are on both sides laughing their butts off that people are so stupid to kill off each other. They are like cock-roaches that wont die in a nuclear blast, and they go and hide until they can resurface to start their games all over again.)


Peace

Dalen



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
regardless of whether or not the defense shield works against land based missiles, there is absolutely no defense for submarine launched missiles from close in to our shores. if the subs go undetected (which is, afterall, their mission), we get hit. period. nor is there any defense from missiles snuck in close to our shores on commercial vessels....a very real threat that has yet to be addressed.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Foreign nuclear subs will probably never get close to US shores undetected, they are too noisy and current US design can track them with ease long before.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I say we put it up to the test, a game of Defcon on Steam tonight?

We'd have to test it with all of the different oppositions though, I hear Europe is the hardest.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
So if no pre-emp.strike on iran/n.korea the u.s.is 2 wait around till they develope their first strike capabilites?guess again...



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Of course America could win we could always have won we just need leaders with the backbone to push the buttons. I suspect the chinese and Russian ICBMs would be more danger to themselves than to us.

America is capable of dominating the world and becoming the most powerful empire in all of history and the world needs us it cant survive without us there to make decisions for it. One day I suspect we will be the world government and the world will be at peace.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Foreign nuclear subs will probably never get close to US shores undetected, they are too noisy and current US design can track them with ease long before.


all it takes is one lucky skipper. and lets face it, our intel hasnt exactly been perfect lately....it wouldnt surprise me at all if russia has an extremely silent sub out there. and again, it would be quite simple for a foriegn cargo ship to get in close enough with a concealed missile or two. launch from say a hundred miles off of norfolk, and we just cant respond in time.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
Of course America could win we could always have won we just need leaders with the backbone to push the buttons. I suspect the chinese and Russian ICBMs would be more danger to themselves than to us.

America is capable of dominating the world and becoming the most powerful empire in all of history and the world needs us it cant survive without us there to make decisions for it. One day I suspect we will be the world government and the world will be at peace.




with a macho, jingoistic attitude like that I am glad you are nowhere near any buttons. Such an attitude is foolhardy...nay foolish in the extreme.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Maybe it's Bush himself, he look as delisionnal as him. Win a nuclear war... YEAH, right. The neo-con propaganda... order out of chaos.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Here's how you win a nuclear war.

You surround a country like Iran on all sides. Then you smuggle nuclear weapons into thier country on foot and plant them inside all of thier target cities and installations and then you pull the trigger on them all at the same time.

I think that a nuclear war is winnable if you do it by surprise.

The resulting nuclear fallout will pollute the drinking water and farm land of the pakistani's, India and China resulting in large scale population die offs in those countries, just like the dinosaurs.

[edit on 7-10-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I thought the Soviets finally disproved the workings of such sheild with "Missile Masking" which was firing a dozen warheads towards a target with only one of the warheads equiped with a LIVE nuke. Am I wrong?

AAC



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I thought the Soviets finally disproved the workings of such sheild with "Missile Masking" which was firing a dozen warheads towards a target with only one of the warheads equiped with a LIVE nuke.


Russian roulette



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
All this reminds me of a lovely little film that came out in 1968 (I think) called "The King of Hearts", has anyone ever seen it? It was a farce on the madness of war set during WW1.

In one scene, the German troops re-enter this town they had just left right as the French are occupying it. Both brigades march pompously around this bandstand opposite of each other and blissfully unaware of each other until a soldier at the end each brigade sees the other and both armies turn and shoot each other dead.

All this talk of a winnable nuclear war reminds me of that scene and the madness of it all.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
Of course America could win we could always have won we just need leaders with the backbone to push the buttons. I suspect the chinese and Russian ICBMs would be more danger to themselves than to us.

America is capable of dominating the world and becoming the most powerful empire in all of history and the world needs us it cant survive without us there to make decisions for it. One day I suspect we will be the world government and the world will be at peace.


Exactly!

You're going to get bashed for being an "arrogant" or "ignorant" american (if you are one) because people on this board like to be different for some reason. They like to claim China is so big and bad blah blah blah. But I agree with you completely.

Russia is in some sort of depression since the Cold War "ended" and the fall of the Soviet Union. They haven't recovered. They won't ever recover. Within the next ten years, if Russia does not drastically upgrade their nuclear arsenal, they will not be able to even put up a slight resistence to a U.S. nuclear strike. Russia is on the decline. It's over for them.

Now, China. The popular pick. You can say "nobody wins a nuclear war", but that's not true. The way I see it, total destruction is how you lose. I'm not saying Russia or China couldn't hit the U.S. mainland. I know they could. But they can't destroy it. We can destroy them. China's navy and air force are in no way shape or form anywhere near comparison to ours. Their nuclear arsenal is in no comparison to ours. They don't have their nuclear subs and nuclear sites strategically positioned all over the world like we do. We surround them. Taiwan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Guam, and South Korea are what would be China's downfall. We could get nukes in there and they'd be surrounded. Not to mention they can only strike West coast cities.

Point is, we could completely destroy Russia and China. Size of the country does not prove military might. Get that out of your heads. Our military and nuclear dominance is here to stay. The United States dominance is here to stay. Bush has run this country into the ground, but we are still on top. China and Russia will be destroyed, or at the very least, set back 20 years before we fall. Remember that.

And really, I'd approve of a nuclear strike on Russia and China. Say what you want about me, but as a country, you have to neutralize threats. You have to serve your interests. That's in our interest. I say we do it.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
FOOLS!... You miss the point entirely. The amounts of weaponry needed for the total destruction of either Russia or China would mean, thanks to the radiation a slow lingering death for us and just about everybody else.

NO nation, no culture, no civilization has ever been (or ever will be) indispensable for the rest of the world...to assume otherwise is the height of arrogance.

Considering how much of the rest of the worlds resources the United States devours in proportion to the size of our population, it is more likely that the world would be happy to see us gone.

At the rate in which we (The United States primarily, but we as in all of us as well) are devouring the world's resources and polluting the rest, we will leaving our grand children poorer for it, thanks to our greed.



[edit on 7-10-2006 by grover]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I can see this thread is really bringing out some complete psychos, why would any wish nuclear war?

Of course the US would win, they have the most and more places to hide and fire them from. If every city in the US was destroyed, they still wouldn't be beaten.

Sad, but true.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Is it possible? Is it crazy? Is the Bush administration capable of such an atrocity? Of course. And they say it themselves.

In a article titled ‘The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy,’ in the March/April 2006 Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the author, Kier Lieber made the following claim:


‘Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.

So they think it's possible to win a ``nuclear war``. Because, how wipe out missile silos and bunkers without at least nuclear bunker buster missiles?


This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.


The cold war isn't finish, they fight for global supremacy, this administration seems to fear nothing to win, not even a nuclear war they could possibly believe they own crap and strike to win. Any thoughts on that?

[edit on 7-10-2006 by Vitchilo]


First off, the administration did not say it themselves. This article was written by two political science professors. This is their professional guessing and theorizing on the possibilities of the US nuclear program as compared to the rest of the world. Granted the information they have on the topic at hand far outweighs my personal information. However, their article has been hotly contested by their own peers.

Foreign Affairs - responses to article

The article above came out in the Sep/Oct 06 issues of the same magazine. There are several people who disagree with them that a pre-emptive strike is guaranteed. The also have another rebuttal at the end of this article.

Either way depending on which expert you choose to believe this is not being put out by the administration. It's pol-science people guessing at what the US is capable of and trying to guess current status of a classified US nuclear policy.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Pathetic fools. US can win a nuclear war only in sweet dream. Russia has nuclear arsenal which is 3 times bigger than the US. It will wipe off the entire US and Europe if attaked. US is struggling to even get the patriot sytem working perfectly. Everyone can imagine how their NMD will perform in real scenario.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join