Would The U.S. Be Impossible To Destroy?

for those that read my posts i've said it like a 10000000000000 times the big threat is china every time you buy a plastic toy from china some of that money is taxed and used to buy weapons which will one day be used against us
dam greedy capitalist CEO's

How do you fire 2.5 guns? More seriously, the old neutron bomb was a very awful thing and there's a certain grotesque irony in the current war aim of not hurting people and destroying buildings (the opposite, 15-20 years later).
Which tends to make me endorse the sound points about US domestic armaments industries posted above.
And let's hope we never find out.

...an enemies most exploitable weakness is thier belief they have none...

Hi, falcon: wrong thread, I know; but I do like the China points. I have to tell you that central government here finds it incredibly difficult to collect any taxes off anybody!
Last year's figures show that the whole PRC raised less than Los Angeles and in business, there's a wonderful system whereby you "negotiate" your tax.
When you buy a Chinese plastic toy, you're putting up real estate prices in Vancouver.

well all i can say is im glad america is on our side. heres a question though if every country had the same amount of weapons, soldiers etc. which do you think would be the easiest to defend? Australia??

Almost anything is possible... I mean the U.S. could be defeted... But most likely we will continue or rein of terror...

but the russians also got haarp, and anyways you with your haarp and hocus pocus laser technology cant even take on a 3rd world state

[Edited on 5-4-2003 by $tranger]

Stranger - What do you mean we can't take on a 3rd world country? We took out Afghanistan in a couple months, something the Soviets couldn't do in a decade.

I firmly believe the U.S. would be the toughest to invade. Simply because of our lax gun laws. Do you have any clue how many people around here have guns? EVERYONE has a gun.

Originally posted by Dangerous_Brian
Stranger - What do you mean we can't take on a 3rd world country? We took out Afghanistan in a couple months, something the Soviets couldn't do in a decade.

I firmly believe the U.S. would be the toughest to invade. Simply because of our lax gun laws. Do you have any clue how many people around here have guns? EVERYONE has a gun.

guns cant stop a nuke

guns cant stop a nuke Posted by Stranger

You are correct. You are also correct that Russia has scalar weapons, along with China, Japan, Australia, the UK, Israel, and several others.

Which is why any war between the US and Russia probably WONT be nuclear, but scalar in nature. First of all, HAARP would likely be used on both sides preemtively to "dud" the opposing sides nukes in thier silos and launchers (along with every other electronic system, effectively plunging humanity back to the middle ages).

If one or the other side decided to take things to the most extreme, it is possible to fire HAARP in a mode tuned to wavelengths that affect the human brain. With enough power behind it, it is possible to paralyze, or totally shut down the human brain, killing everyone over a very wide area.

Given an even further extreme, it is possible to further tune HAARP to deliver a transmission that will break and shutdown the common electro-chemical reactions that power all basic life functions for all carbon based lifeforms. This would kill ALL life, down to the level of bacteria, effectively sterilizing an entire continent if the operators deemed to do so (it has been done on a small scale).

Stranger - No 3rd world country has enough nukes to destroy the U.S.

The only other country with enough to pound us into oblivion(although, with mutually assured destruction) is Russia.

We took out Afghanistan in a couple months, something the Soviets couldn't do in a decade.

lol.. because no one helped them like you did when russia was in a fight with them!

they were fighting with homemade ak's against you.