[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lini Undoubtedly, yes. Just let 'em right into London - the price level there will kill anyone. Otherwise throw kidney pies at 'em. Grinnings from Hannover! Manfred / lini

Excellent tactic... get them depressed and underfed, since they'll all be going "$80 a head for a decent meal? ****!!"

 

[aerius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 edit: I reread aerius' version of taking out a country, and I while we could take out most countries quickly, I still think China and North Korea would be tough.

Stuart Slade, a noted defence analyst has an interesting story about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart Slade We had a Chinese Officer here once on exchange (billed as a "look what we can do" session it was really a "look what we can do to you" exercise). We got the standard line about how the Chinese could lose 500 million people in a nuclear war and keep going with the survivors. So we got out a demographic map (one that shows population densities rather than topographical data) and got to work with pie-cutters using a few classified tricks. We got virtually the entire population of China using only a small proportion of the US arsenal. Our guest stared at the map for a couple of minutes then went and tossed his cookies into the toilet bowl.

 

[chadbang]

America in the sixth round by knockout.

 

[Bunnyears]

Aerius, you seem so very fond of the nuclear option. Why do you think we have never used it? Obviously, with our potential we could eradicate most of the world's population and have nukes left over! A couple of small Hiroshima sized nukes would have done a very nice job in Iraq, for instance, and yet, they have not been used. I completely understand why that guy tossed his cookies! He suddenly realized how very un-usable nukes are! Do you think the USA is less vulnerable? Nuke NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, the ports of CA, Niagara and a few other areas and you will have effectively crippled all of the USA. And forget the MDP (Missile Defense Plan) being deployed now. That is such a waste of money because it is largely ineffective as it is being deployed now.
Quote:

What the president did not say is a) that we've been through this before, many times, with equal exuberance, enormous investments, and no returns; b) that as recently as 18 months ago, the program's top general said it was still at an early stage and warned against rushing things; and c) that, no matter how good defenses might get, any "rogue" with enough sophistication to build and launch a ballistic missile can easily maneuver around those defenses. On this last point, it is worth noting that U.S. weapons scientists and intelligence analysts have known about these maneuvering tricks for more than 40 years; that no one has the slightest idea how to deal with them; and that Bush's current test program does not even attempt to do so (http://www.slate.com/id/2075605/).

Quote:

In September 1999, the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate concluded that any country able to develop ballistic missiles "would also develop various responses to US defenses," including such "readily available technology" as decoys, chaff, or wrapping warheads in radar-absorbing material.

Quote:

In June of last year, Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, director of the missile-defense program, said in hearings before the House Armed Services Committee, "I cannot overemphasize the importance of controlling our expectations and persevering through the hard times as we develop and field a system as complex as missile defense." The program's "test philosophy," he explained, "is to add step-by-step complexities over time. It is a walk-before-you-run, learn-as-you-go development approach."

 

[ipodstudio]

As long as we had Bagdad Bob on our side we'd be fine.....you wouldn't even get close to our airports...

 

[ipodstudio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KYTGuy I think that aerius got it right...the U.S. would take any single country in the world, rather quickly. Your soccer players vs US, NO CONTEST - UK wins... Your soccer fans vs US, again, your fans would stomp the pee out of US. Your Cornish Pasty vs our hamburger...TIE Your Lotus versus our Corvette....depends on the road - TIE Your stereo gear versus ours...US wins Your museums versus ours, You win, just barely Housing US Beauty of the land TIE Roads US Pubs vs roadhouses in beer, UK Pubs vs roadhouses in food, size,number US Medecine US Your rock stars versus ours - you win Your women versus ours - yours become ours, not too many go the other way, so I guess we win there...please take Paris and Madonna! Table manners You win, but we don't care Humor - a definate win for you when we understand

HAHAHAHAH! This was great!! Dunno about the soccer team, though. You beat England 2-1 a while back....the Scots are still partying about it...

 

[briggzy]

UK all the way

alot of the american inventions where stolen from the british eg the revolver

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by briggzy UK all the way alot of the american inventions where stolen from the british eg the revolver

Samuel Colt, born in Connecticut in 1814 is credited with inventing the first revolver firearm. Who and what Briton are you referring to?

 

[viator122]

Clearly both the Americans and the British have strong histories as tough and tenacious people. You can talk all day about how many planes each has and combat experience, but one of the first few replies hit the nail on the head. The UK is an island nation and supplies would be a major problem. Supplies were a major factor in the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War and WWII, and their effect would be exaggerated in a conflict between USA and UK due to the extremely small size of the UK.

 

[ipodstudio]

Question is, who'd want to occupy the UK? Apart from the weather, think about the English occupation of Ireland....that's gone on for what, 800 odd years now? Gotta be careful who you occupy...

I'd leave Britain well alone if I were the US...

 

[aerius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Aerius, you seem so very fond of the nuclear option. Why do you think we have never used it? Obviously, with our potential we could eradicate most of the world's population and have nukes left over! A couple of small Hiroshima sized nukes would have done a very nice job in Iraq, for instance, and yet, they have not been used.

Because so far there's been no case where the benefits of using the nuclear option outweigh the political & economic repurcussions. In the real world, a pre-emtive nuclear strike by the US will lead to pretty much the entire world leveling trade embargos & declarations of war against the US, as well as mass unrest among US citizens.

But since this is a hypothetical scenario of who will win in an all out war, I'm not going to worry too much about political & economic fallout, thus the nuclear option provides the fastest way to end it.

Quote:

I completely understand why that guy tossed his cookies! He suddenly realized how very un-usable nukes are! Do you think the USA is less vulnerable? Nuke NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, the ports of CA, Niagara and a few other areas and you will have effectively crippled all of the USA.

There's 4 countries right now who can nuke the US; Russia, Britain, France, and China. The first can pretty much wipe out the US, the 2nd & 3rd can do substantial but not fatal damage (not enough warheads) using sub launched missiles, and China can only do limited damage to the west coast of the US, if they're lucky. As of now, the Chinese need a couple hours to fuel & prep their missiles, which is enough time for the US to spot them and whack them. US missiles can be launched in minutes and have a flight time of around 30 minutes, fast enough to catch Chinese missiles on the ground.

Quote:

And forget the MDP (Missile Defense Plan) being deployed now. That is such a waste of money because it is largely ineffective as it is being deployed now.

Yep, what we really need is nuclear-tipped interceptors so we don't have to worry about precision contact hits against incoming missiles.

 

[SportaJoe]

The USA without a doubt. Just round up all the tea and they would be at our mercy.

 

[Jahn]

we give you obesity.

you give us bad dental care.

you die of being too fat.

we have our teeth fall out but can sip applesauce from a straw.

WE WIN!

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius Because so far there's been no case where the benefits of using the nuclear option outweigh the political & economic repurcussions. In the real world, a pre-emtive nuclear strike by the US will lead to pretty much the entire world leveling trade embargos & declarations of war against the US, as well as mass unrest among US citizens. But since this is a hypothetical scenario of who will win in an all out war, I'm not going to worry too much about political & economic fallout, thus the nuclear option provides the fastest way to end it. There's 4 countries right now who can nuke the US; Russia, Britain, France, and China. The first can pretty much wipe out the US, the 2nd & 3rd can do substantial but not fatal damage (not enough warheads) using sub launched missiles, and China can only do limited damage to the west coast of the US, if they're lucky. As of now, the Chinese need a couple hours to fuel & prep their missiles, which is enough time for the US to spot them and whack them. US missiles can be launched in minutes and have a flight time of around 30 minutes, fast enough to catch Chinese missiles on the ground. Yep, what we really need is nuclear-tipped interceptors so we don't have to worry about precision contact hits against incoming missiles.

There will never be a scenario where the benefits outweigh the costs. Using nukes today is a totally irrational decision. If you think that missile defense is the way to go, it is because you believe that eventually we will either be attacked or will launch a pre-emptive attack. If you are interested in hypotheticals, take a look at nuclear winter, and then ask yourself if levelling any country with nukes will result in American victory, or long term decline and thus defeat. Your scenario of leveling UK with nukes is a lose-lose scenario. try again!

 

[aerius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears There will never be a scenario where the benefits outweigh the costs. Using nukes today is a totally irrational decision.

Today it is, and I hope it stays that way for a long time to come. But who knows what's gonna happen in the future. Let's say for instance North Korea goes even more loony than it is today, and decides to nuke & invade South Korea as well as lobbing a few nukes at Japan & Hong Kong. It's not too far-fetched.


Quote:

If you think that missile defense is the way to go, it is because you believe that eventually we will either be attacked or will launch a pre-emptive attack.

I believe there's a chance someone might launch a nuke against the US, not that much of a chance but it exists. I feel much better knowing that a system, however imperfect is being put in place to defend against that possibility, as the alternative is to simply hope it never happens. Kinda like putting high security locks on the doors of your home. Chances are you'll never need them, and chances are a really determined burglar will still break through them, but they do give you more time & options.

Let's use the North Korea scenario. They're currently developing missiles which can hit the west coast of the US. Let's assume they get them working, and they decide to launch a limited first strike against the US, say, 5-10 missiles, which is about as many as they can realistically build. Without NMD, the US will have to write off most of west coast, and military doctrine & public pressure would require that they completely incinerate North Korea in retaliation.

With NMD, damage will be more limited, the US may only lose 2-3 cities, or if they get lucky, none at all. In the latter case, this opens up lots of options, the US no longer has to incinerate NK, they can use conventional weapons or limit themselves to nuclear strikes against North Korean military targets only instead of incinerating the entire country.

Quote:

If you are interested in hypotheticals, take a look at nuclear winter, and then ask yourself if levelling any country with nukes will result in American victory, or long term decline and thus defeat. Your scenario of leveling UK with nukes is a lose-lose scenario. try again!

Nuclear winter has been pretty much discredited. The explosive power of all the nukes in the world put together don't even add up to the power of the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991, and that only resulted in a 1-2 degree drop in worldwide temperature. The reports which led to the nuclear winter myth were based on atmospheric models which were far too simplistic as well as being flawed. Research done since the mid-late 80's have shown that it would be more of a nuclear autumn than winter.