What would happen if the world suddenly found out that our nukes might not work?

Kairi 01-30-2006 04:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by corrupt
I don't insult the U.S.A, I speak truth, I say that iraq is a lost cause, which alot of americans say it is as well and I get a load bullsh** about giving miltary advice, maybe because I don't see an army as just an army I see people, I see parents crying over their dead children, I see nice people, who give sweets (candy) to iraqi children, I see people who join the army to pay for college, I have nothing against america, just the government...


Go back to your tea and crumpets, Nigel.
Travis Bickle 01-30-2006 05:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zenigata-Da-Vida
quote:
Originally posted by Hienrich Ele
...Since when is China armed better than the US?

Since they have 2 billion frickin people? They have the largest population PERIOD.... if you converted every able person in China into a soldier, sheer numbers would give them an advantage (I said advantage, I too dunno how well they're armed). If you can get half as many people armed with some serious armaments against that hypothetical Chinese army in a hypothetical battle where the Chinese only have left-over WWII gear.....there's still a good chance that the Chinese may lose.


Try 1.3 billion.

Just because they're chinese doesn't mean they can all join together in an all out war with their "superior arms" and KARA-TA-TA-TEE. The majority of the population is poor and starving and would rather die than fight for their country. And even if they did, we would pwn their asses. Look at that p**** that stood up to the tanks at Tiananmen Square. Where is he now? The widely accepted belief is that he was killed shortly after. What a dumbass.
corrupt 01-30-2006 05:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zenigata-Da-Vida
quote:
Originally posted by Hienrich Ele
...Since when is China armed better than the US?

Since they have 2 billion frickin people? They have the largest population PERIOD.... if you converted every able person in China into a soldier, sheer numbers would give them an advantage (I said advantage, I too dunno how well they're armed). If you can get half as many people armed with some serious armaments against that hypothetical Chinese army in a hypothetical battle where the Chinese only have left-over WWII gear.....there's still a good chance that the Chinese may lose.

......and now I will stop to figure out how the bloody hell we got to talking about this......

I'm also semi in agreement with Heinrich's last statement there...

You have your opinion about the States (which you've repeated over and over and over again), but for Christ's sake we don't need to hear/see it in every post Neutral That's when things have the chance to get ugly.


f*** off i've got free speech, your rule, not mine, so f*** off, if you don't want to here an opinion? fine, just argue instead of just dismissing whatever the person says, I don't go around saying "england is best, all other countries are terrible the americans are all racist and stupid, and anyone who argues with me can f*** off." because I don't think that, i'm sure i'll get a warning for this so, I bid you good day and adeiu... Beileve what you wish, and dismiss everything else, my time is too precious to be wasted around here... I'm sure eskimo will be elevated to high king of the forum by the moderators for her comment about british people, while I am band, and by the way, my name is Leon, not nigel...
Travis Bickle 01-30-2006 05:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by corrupt
f*** off i've got free speech, your rule, not mine, so f*** off, if you don't want to here an opinion? fine, just argue instead of just dismissing whatever the person says, I don't go around saying "england is best, all other countries are terrible the americans are all racist and stupid, and anyone who argues with me can f*** off." because I don't think that, i'm sure i'll get a warning for this so, I bid you good day and adeiu... Beileve what you wish, and dismiss everything else, my time is too precious to be wasted around here...


Dude. You just totally broke one of the few laws of sucsessfully arguing over the internet:

Telling someone to fornicate themself does not automatcally make you victorious. Nor does it make you get your point across.

You can leave now.
Kairi 01-30-2006 05:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Cerpin Taxt
Try 1.3 billion.

Just because they're chinese doesn't mean they can all join together in an all out war with their "superior arms" and KARA-TA-TA-TEE. The majority of the population is poor and starving and would rather die than fight for their country. And even if they did, we would pwn their asses. Look at that p**** that stood up to the tanks at Tiananmen Square. Where is he now? The widely accepted belief is that he was killed shortly after. What a dumbass.


You know, if GTA has taught me anything.. I think that if you were to set one person on fire in China.. that entire country would burn down within a few hours.
Generalissimo D 01-30-2006 05:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Eskimo
quote:
Originally posted by Cerpin Taxt
Try 1.3 billion.

Just because they're chinese doesn't mean they can all join together in an all out war with their "superior arms" and KARA-TA-TA-TEE. The majority of the population is poor and starving and would rather die than fight for their country. And even if they did, we would pwn their asses. Look at that p**** that stood up to the tanks at Tiananmen Square. Where is he now? The widely accepted belief is that he was killed shortly after. What a dumbass.


You know, if GTA has taught me anything.. I think that if you were to set one person on fire in China.. that entire country would burn down within a few hours.


That be Japan. The plague would work better in China.
David Ryder 01-30-2006 05:17 PM
Actually the US could easily take North Korea. and why would be fight india? you act as if the US would be fighting North Korea alone, south korea would most likely help. the only countries the US would be on the ropes with is China, and Russia.
evanASF27 01-30-2006 05:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Cerpin Taxt
Try 1.3 billion.

I was close >.>;;

quote:
Just because they're chinese doesn't mean they can all join together in an all out war with their "superior arms" and KARA-TA-TA-TEE. The majority of the population is poor and starving and would rather die than fight for their country. And even if they did, we would pwn their asses.

Well I was giving a hypothetical situation....something everyone knows in real life would probably never EVER happen because of just that (the majority being poor and starving, etc.). I was just saying...if an army of that magnitude ever went up against an army of half that number, victory for either side would be determined (if we're playing Devil's Advocate and not assuming the 1.3 billion would kick the 500-or-so million's asses) by other factors such as 1) strength/number of state-of-the-art armaments, 2) battlefield terrain, 3) tactics, etc etc
Travis Bickle 01-30-2006 05:23 PM
Actually, all cities would be heavily affected by the plague. Why? Because now that every place is more urban, everyone is closer together than they used to be. Japan is very cramped for space, so if one person gets an airborne disease, everyone else does. Urbanization bring disease. B'zam.

Random thought that's somewhat related: I find it really funny that more people are scared of getting the Chinese Bird Flu than HIV/AIDS. Due to the new "Bird Flu Scare" (which has dwindled down from the headlines to the back of the newspaper as of recent), I started to eat pretty much more chicken than any man ever seen to be daring, so to speak. However, on the AIDS side, the whole "unprotected sex and sharing needles" thing is totally not my bag. When did this occur to me? During the physical act of love. (if you get the reference, you win a prize)

And Evan: If we went to War with the Chinese (hypothetical, like you said), it would be with nukes. No massive invasion of epic proportions of people hiding away in your local take-out place, waiting to strike when the order is given.
088nd 01-30-2006 05:51 PM
quote:


f*** off i've got free speech, your rule, not mine, so f*** off, if you don't want to here an opinion? fine, just argue instead of just dismissing whatever the person says, I don't go around saying "england is best, all other countries are terrible the americans are all racist and stupid, and anyone who argues with me can f*** off." because I don't think that, i'm sure i'll get a warning for this so, I bid you good day and adeiu... Beileve what you wish, and dismiss everything else, my time is too precious to be wasted around here... I'm sure eskimo will be elevated to high king of the forum by the moderators for her comment about british people, while I am band, and by the way, my name is Leon, not nigel...


I really hope the rest of England doesn't act like you. You are by far the most prejudiced person I've ever seen.
corrupt 01-30-2006 06:07 PM
Indeed, i'm very prejudiced, in fact i'm so prejudiced that I hate all americans, and all other countries in the world, in fact i'm going to make myself an island called japanistan and nuke all of the world, GO NUKING WOOT! Roll Eyes

oh and your completely out of context like your signature, I said this would happen, I said "I DON'T THINK THAT." not that I do think that all americans are stupid, i'm sorry for being angry but I'm rather sick of just discreditting everything I say just because i'm a "13 year-old brit" 1. i'm 14 and 2. there was no need to add brit.... I wouldn't have posted anything more if someone had just said "I disagree because...." or just ingnored me, but there was no need to say that, in fact I wouldn't have posted if yu had just said because I was 14... Look, I don't hate america, I would just like to clairfy that for the hundreth time, I dislike the government, hell, i hate all governments to be honest, if you had read my earlier post about what I think of the army (the one before eskimo said things about tea and crumpets), maybe you wouldn't have written this, and also, I have never said "what do you know your american, your all stupid!" i've never said that, neither have I said "Go back to your burgers and fries jimbob." Just to clarify i'm not prejudiced of course, you are entitled to beileve what ever you want to beileve I just want you to know.

this is in response to 088nd-DEpTH's post at 05:51 pm...
paul1290 01-30-2006 06:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by X Prime
On that note, the solution to the nuke problem is obvious to me: make more nukes. As much as countries would love to see the U.S. incapable of countering a nuclear assault, I'd rather not give them the pleasure.


Unfortunatly, the current restrictions on nuclear testing and weapons simply don't allow it. The U.S. military is only allowed to use what they already have.

Also, making more nukes is a surefire way to start a war. So it's either make more nukes and war happens, or don't make nukes and a war might or might not happen. Obviously it's better to go with the lesser of the two evils.
The Fallen Phoenix 01-30-2006 06:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by paul1290
Unfortunatly, the current restrictions on nuclear testing and weapons simply don't allow it. The U.S. military is only allowed to use what they already have.

Also, making more nukes is a surefire way to start a war. So it's either make more nukes and war happens, or don't make nukes and a war might or might not happen. Obviously it's better to go with the lesser of the two evils.


I somehow find it very hard to believe that, if the United States decided to restock its nuclear supply, it would cause a war. In all seriousness, no nation really has much to gain from risking a war with the United States over its restocking its nuclear aresnal aside from perhaps North Korea, but even that...would not be a particularly bright tactical decision.

Worldwide nuclear control/proliferation laws are more often than not enforced by the United States, in any case...

In any case, nuclear weapons have been reduced to nothing more than overglorified political poker chips, anyhow, moreso than actual weapons to be used in combat. At least, that is the way I have viewed them for the last dozen years (at least since the end of the Cold War, although I would argue this tradition has even persisted since the Soviet Union first possessed nuclear weapons and the United States practiced the strategy of Brinksmanship).

The fact of the matter is, there are few first and second world countries (the United States, member nations of the European Union, China, to a lesser extent Russia) that have anything to gain warring between them, especially as the world economy becomes more globalized. For all the talk of China (and India, for that matter) rising up to become a superpower, I really doubt such a power shift would occur via a war, because then (at the very least) both sides would be decimated, and not necessarily through a nuclear war. Instead, such a shift would occur economically...
A Clockwork Tomato 01-30-2006 07:00 PM
The question of whether nukes will actually detonate has always been a serious issue. In the beginning, it was a new techologiy with a lot of unknowns. Later on, we stopped doing testing. The people who originally designed these things and knew their limitations backwards and forwards are dead. Maybe the current generation knows what they're doing, maybe not. You can't tell without setting significant numbers of warheads off from time to time, and we don't do that.

Of course, we've got zillions of warheads, so we can have a pretty high dud rate and it doesn't change things very much.

As for the "numbers vs. technology" debate, the guys with the numbers often win. Look at the Eastern Front in WWII, where the Germans were the technology leader and lost to the Soviets. Look at Korea, where we were the technology leader and got hammered by the Chinese. Look at Vietnam.

Now, most of the countries that get mentioned in these threads aren't a threat to the U.S. because they can't get here. To get hammered by the Chinese in the Korean War, we had to go to Korea. There's no way the Chinese could have come to us. Ditto for Vietnam. If we don't go to them, they can't touch us.

It's not like the Cold War, when the Warsaw Pact had a zillion tanks that could have been in Paris in three days, and the Soviets had a zillion nukes targeted on the U.S. Those threats were real. Today's threats are fake.
Kairi 01-30-2006 09:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by corrupt
I'm sure eskimo will be elevated to high king of the forum by the moderators for her comment about british people, while I am band, and by the way, my name is Leon, not nigel...


I guess I missed this little comment the first time through.

A. I'm a guy. Having a female character in my banner doesn't change my gender.

B. Believe it or not, I used to be a moderator here. You can thank me for the current layout of the forums, many of the default avatars, and the very existance of the JFK Mark Airport.
Sharpshooter005 01-30-2006 09:20 PM
quote:
I somehow find it very hard to believe that, if the United States decided to restock its nuclear supply, it would cause a war


All that would probably happen is you'd get everyone screaming and yelling about how wrong or bad it is.

They wouldn't really do anything though, just scream themselves hoarse.
088nd 01-30-2006 09:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpshooter005
quote:
I somehow find it very hard to believe that, if the United States decided to restock its nuclear supply, it would cause a war


All that would probably happen is you'd get everyone screaming and yelling about how wrong or bad it is.

They wouldn't really do anything though, just scream themselves hoarse.


Kind of like what we're doing to Iran right now?
Krang 01-31-2006 02:01 AM
It's a shame that this forum used to be able to handle controversial topics like politics, but now it seems that most political threads degrade into arguments. Rather than giving out warnings again, I'll say this: Next time this happens, all political topics will be banned from the forums until further notice. Shredder's and my other forums have had political topics banned for years for the same reason so it's not an unusual thing for this to happen, but it's a little disappointing considering how well we have done up until now.

Now if everyone can act mature about this and continue discussing the topic, please do so. Otherwise, this thread will be locked, and the restriction mentioned above will take place. If anyone has any comments about this, please start a new thread in Paradigm HQ rather than replying here.
Gato Gurl914 01-31-2006 08:06 AM
we'd all die, simple as that.
Sharpshooter005 01-31-2006 09:46 AM
We can rebuild them. Faster, stronger, more destructive.

We have the technology.

quote:
Japan is very cramped for space, so if one person gets an airborne disease, everyone else does.


That IS probably where the zombie apocalypse will begin.