Thermonuclear disarmament: Is this a safe way to take America?

[Jorgen]

...nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?

This is Mutually Assured Destruction. Also, after a nuclear war, there wouldn't be anywhere LEFT to live.
That's why it's the ultimate deterrent; You can't live on a planet after that kind of disaster.

And it's better to KEEP our weapons and NOT have to go down. I'd rather keep living and NOT live at the whim of North Korea or Iran, tyvm...

Hell who wouldn't but I am saying if they had performed a preemptive strike and sent nukes your way, would you send more nukes their way which would increase the chance of a nuclear winter.
Lets face it America won't be the first to send nukes they will, chances are also that the nukes sent towards you will create a nuclear winter, if however it doesn't the nuclear bombs sent their way will.

[Takeo The Wise Wolf]

...nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?

This is Mutually Assured Destruction. Also, after a nuclear war, there wouldn't be anywhere LEFT to live.
That's why it's the ultimate deterrent; You can't live on a planet after that kind of disaster.

And it's better to KEEP our weapons and NOT have to go down. I'd rather keep living and NOT live at the whim of North Korea or Iran, tyvm...

Hell who wouldn't but I am saying if they had performed a preemptive strike and sent nukes your way, would you send more nukes their way which would increase the chance of a nuclear winter.
Lets face it America won't be the first to send nukes they will, chances are also that the nukes sent towards you will create a nuclear winter, if however it doesn't the nuclear bombs sent their way will.

But imagine how the American people would react if we just TOOK a nuke to say, LA? The US can't let something like that slide. IF they nuke us, they die. That's why the WON'T.

[Jorgen]

...nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?

This is Mutually Assured Destruction. Also, after a nuclear war, there wouldn't be anywhere LEFT to live.
That's why it's the ultimate deterrent; You can't live on a planet after that kind of disaster.

And it's better to KEEP our weapons and NOT have to go down. I'd rather keep living and NOT live at the whim of North Korea or Iran, tyvm...

Hell who wouldn't but I am saying if they had performed a preemptive strike and sent nukes your way, would you send more nukes their way which would increase the chance of a nuclear winter.
Lets face it America won't be the first to send nukes they will, chances are also that the nukes sent towards you will create a nuclear winter, if however it doesn't the nuclear bombs sent their way will.

But imagine how the American people would react if we just TOOK a nuke to say, LA? The US can't let something like that slide. IF they nuke us, they die. That's why the WON'T.

there are others ways to kill than nuclear weapons, which is what I am saying.  Even fucking genetic targeting biobombs would be better and less disruptive towards the worlds eucological system.

[Old Crow]

So you are looking away from every other reason and only targeting the morale reason that is the geneva convention.

I am not gonna go digging trough that thing now but I am pretty sure there is a limit towards the usage of so called ABC bombs.

still even looking away from that reason the cons outweigh the pros, you might have the bragging rights to say we have nuclear weaponry but there is really no use in it, if a nuclear war were to happen it is basically a fight for the least destroyed territory after the world goes under. Lets face it most of our planets life will not survive a nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existence?

There isn't any pro's for having the bomb. It served its purpose back in the 40-90's when the Soviets were still kicking but why its still around today (in greatly reduced numbers) is in case. China, North Korea, Iran all have nukes. Sure probably 2 aircraft carriers can do just as much damage but its an ultimate weapon for extreme measures that won't go away unless everybody gets rid of them. Id love to see the thing go away. No need to blow up a country and fuck the rest of the planet in the process. Course tell that to Iran when they get one and try to take Israel out.

[Jorgen]

So you are looking away from every other reason and only targeting the morale reason that is the geneva convention.

I am not gonna go diggin trough that thing now but I am pretty sure there is a limit towards the usage of so called ABC bombs.

still even looking away from that reason the cons outweigh the pros, you might have the bragging rights to say we have nuclear weaponry but there is really no use in it, if a nuclear war were to happen it is basically a fight for the least destroyed territory after the world goes under. Lets face it most of our planets life will not survive a nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existence?

There isn't any cons for having the bomb. It served its purpose back in the 40-90's when the Soviets were still kicking but why its still around today (in greatly reduced numbers) is in case. China, North Korea, Iran all have nukes. Sure probably 2 aircraft carriers can do just as much damage but its an ultimate weapon for extreme measures that won't go away unless everybody gets rid of them. Id love to see the thing go away. No need to blow up a country and fuck the rest of the planet in the process. Course tell that to Iran when they get one and try to take Israel out.

the cons I meant are listed in my previous post (previous from the post you quoted).

[Old Crow]

err i meant Pros. that's what i meant! cons outweigh pros by far

[Finniespin]

No-one is willing to give up his power. That's just stupid...

[Boxman]

It's basically a way to keep America in control... They're not giving up power and risking a take-over of sorts..

However, all great powers fall.

[Finniespin]

It's basically a way to keep America in control... They're not giving up power and risking a take-over of sorts..

However, all great powers fall.

Well I guess in a very, very hard way...

[Old Crow]

Yes all great powers fall but the question is..... Will the Chinese just fuck everybody over because they can??
They are the next in line and with 1.4 Billion people what can stop them?

[Takeo The Wise Wolf]

Yes all great powers fall but the question is..... Will the Chinese just fuck everybody over because they can??
They are the next in line and with 1.4 Billion people what can stop them?

1.4 Billion people isn't the size of the military. Regardless, they still have huge quantities of land, air, and sea forces. A single nuke would deal disproportionate casualties on Chinese forces, assuming they march in a regimented manner.

A column of mechanized infantry and armor would be pretty well screwed if a nearby nuclear blast occured.

[Jorgen]

Yes all great powers fall but the question is..... Will the Chinese just fuck everybody over because they can??
They are the next in line and with 1.4 Billion people what can stop them?

1.4 Billion people isn't the size of the military. Regardless, they still have huge quantities of land, air, and sea forces. A single nuke would deal disproportionate casualties on Chinese forces, assuming they march in a regimented manner.

A column of mechanized infantry and armor would be pretty well screwed if a nearby nuclear blast occured.

who would stand by the side off America if your first response is to play dirty and nuke them? Where is the line drawn, for what a country will do to win a war? Officially it is suposed to be when what you are doing threatens earth/planet of residence.

[Old Crow]

Like somebody said earlier America wouldn't be the first to use nukes. I know their Army is not 1.4 billion strong but the standing Army is about 12 million and they can call up reserves of 100 million. 100! That's a third of the US population and there's no way a third of our countrymen can fight. Remember Korea? The Chinese would just send waves of people to get mowed down and they still ended up taking back half the country!

[Takeo The Wise Wolf]

Like somebody said earlier America wouldn't be the first to use nukes. I know their Army is not 1.4 billion strong but the standing Army is about 12 million and they can call up reserves of 100 million. 100! That's a third of the US population and there's no way a third of our countrymen can fight. Remember Korea? The Chinese would just send waves of people to get mowed down and they still ended up taking back half the country!

Hence why the nuclear option is the only viable one in the event that china attempts to invade.

[Fullmetal Megadave]

Like somebody said earlier America wouldn't be the first to use nukes. I know their Army is not 1.4 billion strong but the standing Army is about 12 million and they can call up reserves of 100 million. 100! That's a third of the US population and there's no way a third of our countrymen can fight. Remember Korea? The Chinese would just send waves of people to get mowed down and they still ended up taking back half the country!

Hence why the nuclear option is the only viable one in the event that china attempts to invade.

Just like hiroshima