So.... how many scenarios that do not entail commies overrunning North America require hundreds of nuclear weapons to respond?
That's right - remarkably few.
Because like every other nuclear power on the Security Council (plus Israel and India, who seem to be pretty responsible chaps as well) the United States would be fucked over for eons if it retaliated a conventional aggression on a level of escalation lower than that of a nuclear attack with a nuke, even the more when the stricken nation doesn't have nukes itself. C.Puffs, you can repeat your mindless gibberish all over again while strutting like a horny peacock but it doesn't change a thing with regards to the military doctrines of the United States of America.
In my humble opinion, a nuclear deterrent is badly needed to keep the madmen in Iran and elsewhere at bay and it should be maintained to prepare for possible geopolitical shifts in the distant future. But anyone who thinks a Russian or Chinese attack on the United States would be a feasible possibility in the near future has clearly played too much Call of Duty. Also since China and Russia are, in fact, reducing systems as we speak I've still not been presented credible reasons why 100 American warheads more or less would actually make a difference.
It's a shame that you don't seem to be interested in a sober debate.
Last edited by muck; 07-07-2012 at 12:01 PM.
Hmmm I wasn't aware the US had collapsed...any of you?
If it had collapsed, Im wondering why the Internet still works![]()