Global Thermonuclear War

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

I am 31, so do you think in my living memory we will see any of these threats come to fruition?

 

Not until somebody invents a time machine which would allow us to travel back about 29 years.

 

As for the future (the memories you have not yet earned) who knows?

 

You could always spend your life worrying about it. Or you could find something else to worry about. Or you could just get on with your life.

[Balpin 12]

Not until somebody invents a time machine which would allow us to travel back about 29 years.

 

As for the future (the memories you have not yet earned) who knows?

 

You could always spend your life worrying about it. Or you could find something else to worry about. Or you could just get on with your life.

 

MAD and the cold war were all a sham, as Gorbachev revealed.

 

They were just used as a mind game to keep world order.

 

We were fed tales about dirty commies, and that all the women were ugly and all the men about 7 feet tall who ate babies, and the Russians were told similar tales about us.

With the advent of international TV we saw that we were all alike, and all suffering under the same yoke.

 

The problem you have today is the death of international capitalism, that will be more of a death dealer than any nuclear war.

[Speed Demon 10]

If as you say we are seeing the death of international capitalism, when will the world officially be declared bankrupt and beyond repair.

[WeX 10]

On the subject, this is very interesting

 

http://www.wouldisurviveanuke.com/

 

According to that site, Sheffield is just out of the range of a nuclear attack on both Leeds and Manchester. So its win win for us

[Balpin 12]

The modern world shows what a mistake it was to undermine and destroy the USSR.

They were obviously keeping a lid on this mindless fools we now have now trying to destroy us.

The world was a safer place during the Cold War, no Russians ever left bombs in shopping arcades and nighclubs etc, our own terrorists did that.

 

When you think of the money that is being spent, and the technology used to kill a few taliban, it is phenominal.

 

It is a lot cheaper for them to create more taliban, no matter how many we kill, than it for us to make even one Apache.

 

Yet to wipe out one small group we need many layers of technology, Chinooks, Apaches, Predators, fast bombers, AWACS.

Before we consider the men and weaponry.

 

All they need is suicidal blind faith.

 

We would have been better off keeping the USSR, and giving them all this money, as well as that we paid to Al Queda to undermine them.

[f0rd 10]

It cannot happen now, as the USSR is out of the equation.

The enemies of the USA between them do not have the capacity to even hurt them.

Ahttp://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8616511ll the other nuclear powers are allies of the USA.

During the Cold War, it was known as MAD, Mutualy Assured Destruction.

 

Gorbachev saw the stupid folly in this, and stopped Reagan in his tracks at the Iceland summit, by offering to give all his missiles up.

 

Its worth a read Death Hand.

[Anna B 1,417]

These days the main purpose of having a nuclear weapon is to deter other countries from invading / interfering in your country.

For example America arguably 'invaded' Iraq and left the country in ruins, but will think twice before interfering in Iran, because it has nuclear weapons.

[md00071 10]

These days the main purpose of having a nuclear weapon is to deter other countries from invading / interfering in your country.

For example America arguably 'invaded' Iraq and left the country in ruins, but will think twice before interfering in Iran, because it has nuclear weapons.

 

This is the danger. It's not the danger of countries having the bomb, it's the length other countries will go to to stop others from getting it. Pakistan and India both now have nuclear weapons, and will now engage in their own era of mutually assured destruction. Israel, on the other hand, will never accept Iran from having nuclear weapons. They know that their own nuclear detterrent will be rendered useless if one of their hostile neighbours gets a capability. I would take,at most, one or two low-yield warheads to destroy Israel, whereas Iran is a vast country with many population centres and military targets to take out. I honestly believe that, but for US-pressure, Israel would have already carried out pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear developments. They have done this before against their neighbours. The threat of a prolonged war in the middle-east grows closer every day. The USA vs any arabic nation will always be a mismatch ending in occupation. Israel vs Iran will be a fight to the death, possibly of both...

Edited February 25, 2012 by md00071

[Balpin 12]

This is the danger. It's not the danger of countries having the bomb, it's the length other countries will go to to stop others from getting it. Pakistan and India both now have nuclear weapons, and will now engage in their own era of mutually assured destruction. Israel, on the other hand, will never accept Iran from having nuclear weapons. They know that their own nuclear detterrent will be rendered useless if one of their hostile neighbours gets a capability. I would take,at most, one or two low-yield warheads to destroy Israel, whereas Iran is a vast country with many population centres and military targets to take out. I honestly believe that, but for US-pressure, Israel would have already carried out pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear developments. They have done this before against their neighbours. The threat of a prolonged war in the middle-east grows closer every day. The USA vs any arabic nation will always be a mismatch ending in occupation. Israel vs Iran will be a fight to the death, possibly of both...

 

A very gloomy outlook.

 

Thanks for cheering me up on a Saturday morning.