nuclear war

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In 2, depending on the circumstances you could assume that he would be out of power very soon without the capability to attack other countries, where as a retaliation from the Us could cause him to decide to hit all US allies as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you some sort of self loathing pansy masochist or something? I bet if I punch you in the stomach and steal your money you wouldn't even try to fight back.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. Are you suggesting he punches you back and steals your money? Then you get to punch him back and steal his money? etc, etc, etc.
In the end you'll both have very sore stomachs and have no idea whose money is whose.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Total counter-strike--against Russia and any and all of its allies. The nuclear deterrent will only work when the otherside realizes that any strike will spell out its own doom. The fact that the US population will be already dead, and the deterrence has failed in one instance changes nothing. Nuclear technology will still exist, and the deterrence model must be upheld for the sake of the remaining world.



[/ QUOTE ]

if that happened the deterence model would be shown to be flawed so why bother upholding it? Deterence must be absolute otherwise it is useless. By launching an attack that Russia knew would destroy them they have ignored the deterence. Both populations are now destroyed. Deterence therefore doesn't exist then, and can't be asumed to work in the future. The only thing you can be sure of is that you have just killed a few hundred million more people than before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree with you here. Until the Russian strike, we expected the threat of deterrence to be enough. It wasn't in this example, although in real life it appears to have worked so far.

Now we have a government that ignores deterrence and has killed your people. Counterstrike is the only choice. The enemy would only fire because he didn't believe you would return attack (or is not rational). If the enemy says if I get there first he won't fire, then the enemy would get there first. The fact that you will fire prevents the original strike. In the event the threat fails, then the return strike is necessary. The enemy cannot be allowed to profit and be rewarded for his aggression. Thus, the remaining world sees first hand that nuclear assault is a worthless venture to embark upon.

Also, aren't the 99.9% of America just as innocent?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, aren't the 99.9% of America just as innocent?


[/ QUOTE ]

Almost everyone who would die are innocent. I dont think it gives the US theright to slaughter millions more innocents. I think the best strategy is game over, we lose. No point in [censored] up the entire world just to get a little revenge to satisfy the remaining .01%

[sweetjazz]

Why I am worrying about a decision that I only have a 0.1% chance of actually making anyway?

[mrmazoo]

Deterrence only comes into effect if there is the possibility of future trials. Since launching our nukes will result in the destruction of both the US and Russia, who are we deterring? France?

[DougShrapnel]

Do not let these weapons fall into the hands of suicidal madmen. That is the only legitimate answer.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

Id be willing to bet that we could shoot down/stop 95% of long range balistic missles. Even if we couldnt shoot 1 down, to kill 99.9% of the US's population it would take prolly hundreds if not thousands of warheads rendering the planet [censored].

[SomethingClever]

Yeah, the scenario is also absurd because there is absolutely no point in killing 99.9% of the population either.

All major military bases and infrastructure would be targeted and destroyed. Why waste nukes on cities and people that would then be defenseless?

The smart dictator would enslave our people and use them to make gold-plated Rolls Royces, not nuke them.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Id be willing to bet that we could shoot down/stop 95% of long range balistic missles. Even if we couldnt shoot 1 down, to kill 99.9% of the US's population it would take prolly hundreds if not thousands of warheads rendering the planet [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

You would lose this bet and then get blown away by all the nukes. What gives you the idea we are able to shoot down ANY ICBMs in flight? the Sci-Fi channel?

[Dudd]

How do people not know they we've spent billions on a missile shield that doesn't even come close to working yet?