Originally posted by ShadowXIX
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.

Exactly!!

At the current point in History if a strike was carried out on the US it would be the end of civilization. Nuclear War would follow and we would all die. Yes I said everyone.

China wouldn't win, Hell that would be the first place the US's Nukes would go. After that who knows but I do know that China would retaliate and other countries would get in on the fight and when the dust settled 1000 years later we would all be dead

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.

Ohhhh - they objected alright - but why did they object?

The reason: They were getting LOTS of oil in exchange for MILLITARY HARDWARE.

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.

Any preemptive use of nukes by the US would condemn them throughout the world for a very long time. However being attacked with nuclear weapons is a different matter, especially if it's a civilian target.

Question - Is the United States really more prepared to implement the MAD doctrine than any of the other strategic nuclear powers ? Surely not. Out of all the countries the US has the most to lose.

Scientist - maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Things can be spun this way or that, and the fact is that even though Chirac may have done it for that reason (or to get higher poll numbers) an overwhelming percentage of the French were against the war to start with... enough that it could endanger a government not taking heed of their advice. Same thing with Germany.

In my view, this thing about France and Iraqi oil is like Bush and Kerry's military service... it can be debated till the end of time and we still won't know precisely what happened.

What do you mean we won't know? It is VERY WELL KNOWN. France got lots of OIL (the very thing Bush is accused of) in exchange for WEAPONS (figure that - the surrender monkey, peace loving frogs were giving WEAPONS to SADDAM freakin' HUISSAN!!!!). What isn't known? They are FACTS!

Mad Man - and for every site you will provide that will support your claim, there will be other sites to say the contrary. That's the endless debate on here.

And as for calling the French surrender monkeys, I don't appreciate that. I'm French Canadian and my ancestors were French. How would you feel if I called Americans arrogant bullies?

Besides, if we really want to get into the debate about who had the most interests for or against an invasion of Iraq, we have to look into Halliburton as well as American "investors" waiting to get their hands on Iraqi oil.

Take offense - I don't care. I'm part French myself - but you know what, the French people are surrender monkeys. It's just the way things are. I'm not going to be sorry for something that they have proven time and time again.

The source you gave is practically a couple years old, and a lot can happen in a couple years. In fact, allow me to quote…

"On June 1, National Nuclear Security Administration chief Linton F. Brooks submitted a classified report to Congress detailing the plans that have been agreed to by the Energy and Defense Departments regarding reductions in the nuclear stockpile. Brooks said the stockpile would be reduced by "almost half" but declined to provide details about its new size or composition, citing classification reasons”

and...

“If the United States cuts its total nuclear stockpile by "almost half," some 4,300 warheads (or 42 percent) of six types will be retired and disassembled.”

That means that if the United States did cut its stockpile by half Russia now maintains the largest nuclear arsenal.

Putin has shown over the years a renewed interest in nuclear weapons. All indications point Russia is still preparing to win a nuclear war, with none other than the United States.

The Russian nuclear arsenal has never been an official count, just estimates, mainly because the Russians refuse to release official data. That means your source, coupled with the fact that it’s a little outdated, is wrong. The Russians are probably increasing their arsenal, instead of cutting it.

And what do you mean Russia has no advantage? They actually do. Russians are not stupid enough to nuke US cities, that’d be a waste. They would nuke targets that have the potential to kill Russians, and one little thing the Russians quickly noticed is nearly every American military target is in very close proximity to a city. That way, a nuke could take out both for the price of one.

Russia is also the only country that has a satellite that may be able to protect the Mother land. The US has no defense against a nuclear attack.

And yes, Russia does have a project that would allow theICBM's to launch themselves. The main purpose brings into account the possibility that all Russian generals are killed in a first attack.

The nukes would move/rotate/position themselves on the target that would pose the most threat to Russia, and launch themselves. That way, no matter what, the Russian people still have at least something defending them.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Take offense - I don't care. I'm part French myself - but you know what, the French people are surrender monkeys. It's just the way things are. I'm not going to be sorry for something that they have proven time and time again.

What's that quote from the French general to the German general during NATO manouvres.

• French : You Germans are only good for garrison duty
  
• German : True, in the last war we garrisoned Paris, Cherbourg, Le Havre

France's only interest is self interest. You are completely right Pistol when you talk about France's atrocities, too many too count.

Originally posted by The Crow


And yes, Russia does have a project that would allow theICBM's to launch themselves. The main purpose brings into account the possibility that all Russian generals are killed in a first attack.

The nukes would move/rotate/position themselves on the target that would pose the most threat to Russia, and launch themselves. That way, no matter what, the Russian people still have at least something defending them.

I have heard many stories talking about this progam the so called "Dead Hand" Though Im not sure what it is called in Russian or if that is just a NATO name for it.

Has this program been proven to exist also is it still in operation?

I have always thought this program might lead to a accidental launch as taken humans out of the equation is not fool proof.

Thanks for the link mad scientist

Originally posted by mad scientist
What's that quote from the French general to the German general during NATO manouvres.

• French : You Germans are only good for garrison duty
  
• German : True, in the last war we garrisoned Paris, Cherbourg, Le Havre

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

But back to the point, France is a self serving hypocrit. Does anyone really believe that they felt it was soooooo wrong to get Saddam out? No, of course not - at least as long as it wouldn't disrupt their economic agreements, which of curse it would. So they said no - not because they didn't want civs to die, not because Saddam didn't pose a threat, but for one thing - COLD HARD CASH.

Now you can say what you wat about the US benifiting from oil their, but the fact remains, at the very least PART of why we went there was to get an evil dictator out of office.

.
Maybe it serves some purpose to discuss this. I can't say I enjoy it. SamirAlfey you sound as dumb as the ignorant neo-cons that currently run this country. I hope that like has been mentioned everyone will wait till after the results of the next election. Further I hope anyone capable and actually thinking this way will consider a surgical strike on Washington DC ONLY. Do the whole world a favor.
Thanks from a non-DC US resident.

My appolgies go out to non-politically corrupt DC residents.
.

Originally posted by Samiralfey
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]

Yes you should assuming you have a death wish, bring it on. In as far as being a major contributor to world terrorism, I suggest the ChiComs take a look at themselves.

So I guess the question is, does anyone have the balls to pre-empt?

One word comes to mind: NOPE!

Originally posted by American Mad Man
So I guess the question is, does anyone have the balls to pre-empt?

One word comes to mind: NOPE!

Pre-empt with what ?