Should the world(China, Russia, EU etc)conduct a preemptive strike against US before it get too dang

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
With this global police matter and destabilazing, interfering and invading sovereign countries, should the World step in and pre-emptive US of A before US starts nuking countries on it's path to 'democratize' the world. A strike against the CTG's and perhaps a nuclear strike to major US cities to demoralize the people and army?

Would these pre-empts be justified since US is a major contributor to world terrorism and also constantly seeking new ways to develop WMD's?

[edit on 26-8-2004 by Samiralfey]

[edit on 26-8-2004 by Samiralfey]




posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
sry, but pre-emptive? as in...?

oh, btw, nah, usa ain't gonna start takin over the world or some other sh**t, i believe



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Whether they should or not, is one very interesting question.

We are supposed to be the country of good, but with leadership like this, we can easily be led astray. Let's hope we fix it in this election, but if we don't (or can't), it may be time for another revolution, which in today's police state, is near impossible.

Maybe some other country will have to start financing an American rebel group. hahahah

I doubt it. We are #ed.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I would be patient. If the system is reformed by it's citizens by a closely watched election, and bush loses to someone else, no need. If bush does win, I won't complain about 'rebel' forces. heck, I might even join!


[edit on 26-8-2004 by Crysstaafur]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
If the rest of the world is in a hurry for dooms day then they might as well go for it. Any conflict of this scale would lead to a full scale nuclear war and the world would be back in the stone age if we were lucky.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I'm sorry but a pre-emptive against the US is going to kick off a reall mess. Considering Bush's reactions to the 911 attacks, I honestly think he would go nuclear against a nation that was to attack us. That would most likely snowball into a full on nuclear war, and there are no winners in nuclear wars. Plus as an american citizen I don't give 2 craps how bad the president does, I would be rather pissed if some nation decided its going to step in and take control. For some reason the idea of more forces on our soil to control us (in addition to police, federal agencies, military) would just piss me right off, as it probably would most other sensible citizens.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
We may do some messed up stuff, but putting the world in the hands of China is much more dangerous. Sometimes people buy too much into the "America is the devil" rhetoric.

What kind of pre-emptive strike could be brought against us that isn't nuclear? We'd see any kind of naval or ground assault coming and hit it with everything we have before it got anywhere near us.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Samiralfey,

Sounds like global suicide.

But hey, It's not the US's fault that these other potential attackers, prefer
despotism, socialism, communism, Theocratic dictatorships, etc, etc..

Drooling with envy over the US's wealth, creativity, and freedoms just doesn't cut it any more? Try something like democracy...maybe we'll get along then?

The US is just too cocky, thats what you are really saying , right?

I for one, say......WE have the RIGHT to be cocky...am I wrong there?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt



The US is just too cocky, thats what you are really saying , right?

I for one, say......WE have the RIGHT to be cocky...am I wrong there?










Hell no. It's a natural side effect of being the best
. Although I do think Australia's standard of living is better.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Just try it.

Who exactly is going to invade? China? Sure they have lots of GI's, but they can't get that army to Taiwan, much less the US. Russia? Please, they have trouble upkeeping aircraft and keeping their subs from sinking. The EU? England is our closest Ally, and we all know how willing to fight France is. So that leaves exactly who? Exactly what country is going to commit suicide by trying to attack the US? they would have thousands of nukes blowing them to bits.

This is the worst idea I have ever heard, simply from a practical point of view, never mind the fact that the US is not an evil country.

Booo to you



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Actually, the US and Russia in a nuclear war would be a rather close tie. In fact, Russia would even have the advantage I would think. It has more nuclear warheads, by far. It has satellites in orbit. Putin has even repeatedly said he isn't afraid to initiate a nuclear attack on anyone, and IF he does...

Russia is having trouble maintaining their nukes. If they start a war, you can bet they'll use 'em before they lose 'em. The most likely targets are military, and that will definitely even the odds if done right. Just look at it this way, if Russia attacks first, they'll win. No exceptions. Likewise with the US.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
We may do some messed up stuff, but putting the world in the hands of China is much more dangerous. Sometimes people buy too much into the "America is the devil" rhetoric.

What kind of pre-emptive strike could be brought against us that isn't nuclear? We'd see any kind of naval or ground assault coming and hit it with everything we have before it got anywhere near us.



I would Disagree, the US could be hit with a cruise missile at any time and we would have no defences in place to stop it.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Crow
Actually, the US and Russia in a nuclear war would be a rather close tie. In fact, Russia would even have the advantage I would think. It has more nuclear warheads, by far. It has satellites in orbit. Putin has even repeatedly said he isn't afraid to initiate a nuclear attack on anyone, and IF he does...

Russia is having trouble maintaining their nukes. If they start a war, you can bet they'll use 'em before they lose 'em. The most likely targets are military, and that will definitely even the odds if done right. Just look at it this way, if Russia attacks first, they'll win. No exceptions. Likewise with the US.


Russia would have no advantage in any way in nuclear war over the US - let's look at the facts shall we?




10,455: Total warheads in the U.S. stockpile

8,400: Total number of operational nuclear warheads in Russian arsenal

Source

It would seem you are wrong on the number of war heads mate.

Now let's take a look at the effectiveness of these warheads. The US can put an ICBM through the uprights of a football fields crossbar. That is a FACT. Of the last three nuclear missle tests conducted by Russia, 2 FAILED. The third was launched several weeks later, after the first 2 fell harmlessly to into the ocean and with much preperation. These missles came from that arsenal. That equals a 66% failure rate budy. US failure rate would be under 5% - if that.

Now I agree with you that who ever attacks first would hold the undisputed edge, but consider that the US has more SSBN's, each carrying minutemen missles. None of these subs would be found by the Russians.

Also, because of early warning systems, all US ICBM's would be launched before they were hit, that is another fact. So infact, you are wrong on this. If you add that about HALF (and probably more considering their last war games failed to launch a single missle without failure) of thier ICBMs wouldn't hit anything, plus the fact that many of their nukes are deliverd through bombers, which would be intercepted before they reached the US with the fact that the US would get nearly all hits with our nukes, if ANYONE were to truely win, it would be the US.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Crow
Actually, the US and Russia in a nuclear war would be a rather close tie. In fact, Russia would even have the advantage I would think. It has more nuclear warheads, by far. It has satellites in orbit. Putin has even repeatedly said he isn't afraid to initiate a nuclear attack on anyone, and IF he does...

Russia is having trouble maintaining their nukes. If they start a war, you can bet they'll use 'em before they lose 'em. The most likely targets are military, and that will definitely even the odds if done right. Just look at it this way, if Russia attacks first, they'll win. No exceptions. Likewise with the US.


After the cold war it was revealed that Russian/Soviet early warning systems were so poor that a nuclear detonation in large parts of Asian Russia would have gone unnoticed until after the event.

Russian nuclear weapons are notorious for there short life span. They built new warheads rather than maintain the old ones properly. It would stand to reason that the tritium in the many of the warheads would have deteriorated over time. This would substantially reduce their yield although they's still cause much damage.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Yes, but how would being hit by cruise missles be an effective pre-emptive strike? It would destroy some of our infrastructure and kill a lot of people, but it would hardly weaken us. To top that off whatever these cruise missles are being launched from (ship/plane/sub) has to be within range of us. We would see it coming.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Horrible thought? It could very well happen. And if "we" re elect Bush, im afraid it WILL happen. How unfortunate for us.
If you think we're too big and too powerful for this to happen you're mistaken.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Even if Russia nuked every city in the United States they would have to contend with, The 16 SSBNs carry 384 SLBMs with as many as 2,880 warheads. Nuclear subs really takes the whole whole hit them first before they can hit us thing out of the equation.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The interesting thing is, if the result of any agression against the United States was to trigger a nuclear war - a rather horrendous prospect - then it means logically that United States can pretty well do what it pleases with the planet. No one will step in to complain, because 1) it would trigger mutually assured destruction and 2) countries are growing too afraid of the United States to object. The only ones that really dared - France, for example - paid the price.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by spacedoubt



The US is just too cocky, thats what you are really saying , right?

I for one, say......WE have the RIGHT to be cocky...am I wrong there? This is precicely the attitude the world hates us for.










Hell no. It's a natural side effect of being the best
. Although I do think Australia's standard of living is better.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
The interesting thing is, if the result of any agression against the United States was to trigger a nuclear war - a rather horrendous prospect - then it means logically that United States can pretty well do what it pleases with the planet. No one will step in to complain, because 1) it would trigger mutually assured destruction and 2) countries are growing too afraid of the United States to object. The only ones that really dared - France, for example - paid the price.



Russia had the same power and most likely still has more then enough to destroy the world. Russia was rumored to have a program called Dead Hand which could launch its nuclear weapons even if they were killed in a first strike. So the nukes would launch themselves even without orders from any humans.

The whole first strike thing was never really a option for either side there was only MAD





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join