Will another strategic projectile ever be launched?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Semper Fi, Mar 24, 2005.

  1. Semper Fi
    Offline

    Semper Fi VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,772
    Thanks Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Ratings:
    +130
    Honestly, I doubt it will happen, except in the case of a terror attack. Here's why:

    To launch a nuclear warhead would ultimately mean the free world as well as the majority of Earth's superpowers declaring mutual war on the initiating nation. Unless NATO or the UN agreed to use nuclear strength, but would that really happen? Not likely. Let's say that India or Iran launched one warhead in an attempt to devastate an enemy. Would the free world as well as the entire world stand for that? No, and more than likely military force would be used. A problem then is that the offending country may launch a series of warheads as a last ditch attempt to level the fields to a cease-fire. Scary thought.

    The odds of the US and any other nonproliferation country (including Russia, provided it is still under democratic power), to me are very slim. It seems as though the threat of global destruction would be too great a risk to include strategic warfare on the list of feasible military alternatives. I mean that in a sense of retalliation, as well.

    My point is, the world is more or less at a stand-off as far as strategic warfare is concerned. The only way I see a nuke going off in the near future (the world as we know it today) is from being in the hands of a terrorist or another form of extremist faction. The only question now is what will happen then?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Itsthetruth
    Online

    Itsthetruth Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    So tell me which nations you believe are part of the "free world" and what makes them "free".

    Now if you're talking about which nations have democratic forms of government (parliamentary for example) and guarantee peoples civil liberties and civil rights we would wind up with an entirely different list of nations compared to the "free world" list.

    Many conservatives and right-wingers insist the United States is not and was not meant to be a democracy. They insist this is a republican form of governent, not a democratic parliamentary form of government. That's why they frequently support the governments trampling on our democratic rights and liberties.
     
  3. Semper Fi
    Offline

    Semper Fi VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,772
    Thanks Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Ratings:
    +130

    By Free World I mean basically every country that doesnt suffer from oppression and who's citizens are granted basic freedoms (freedom of speech, ect.).
     
  4. Itsthetruth
    Online

    Itsthetruth Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    OK That's a good answer and I think that's what most people would say. At least, I hope so.
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    Apparently not you if you are trying to pretend that the US isn't among the free world.

    BTW we are a Republic. Do you even understand what that is?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Itsthetruth
    Online

    Itsthetruth Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    George Bush, with the support of many Democrats, is doing his best to change that.

    So we are a Republic and not a Democracy according to you? I remember that's what the old right-wing looneys in the John Birch Society use to say.
     
  7. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    We are a Republic according to our Founders. you know. John Adams, Ben Franklin, and all those guys?

    Oh and btw your assertions are not facts. they are your opinions and they are baseless.
     
  8. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Itsthetruth should change his name to itsthetruthaccordingtome or better yet, "IamDumb".
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    For the reasons you mentioned, it is much more likely that the next strategic weapon used will be smuggled in rather than ballisitcally launched.

    If Iran can sneak a truck into Tel Aviv with an atom bomb, it would be much easier to deny culpability. It wouldn't work, in that they wouldn't escape retribution, but that doesn't mean they aren't so stupid as to try. If they do do this, we will end up dropping an awful lot of bombs on that country, and we may not even bother to invade (with large forces). The plan might be to destroy all governmental installations, assist the anti-mullah factions with weapons, intelligence, aerial support, and money, and what will be will be (I'm sure we have plans for just that course of action already drawn up).

    If it came to the point where there was an invasion of North Korea, or even a sufficiently extensive strategic/tactical bombing offensive that Kim felt endangered, I could see him launching a missile, or missiles, out of spite.

    A large scale exchange of strategic weapons I don't see happening, at least not in the forseeable future.

    One hundred years from now the geopolitical situation could be completely different however. Who knows?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Well I see the resident ding-dong managed to hijack your thread with another of his inane comments, so I'll try to get us back on track.

    You can assume that Britain and the USA could agree on a nuclear retaliatory strike. But I don't see us gaining much traction with France, Russia, China, India, NK, etc. So in my view, the likelihood of any agreed-upon nuclear response is extremely slim.

    For a second there, I thought you were being funny. NATO is bad enough, but the UN??? Those bastards couldn't agree which fork to use at breakfast to stick into the scrambled eggs.

    Well yes - quite frankly I think that the rest of the world would make a lot of noise, but ultimately they wouldn't do a damned thing.

    Look at what is going on currently with the WOT. We are attacked. 3000 plus of our people dead. The rest of the world sheds crocodile tears and "sympathizes" with us. Suddenly we're "popular". But as soon as we take action against terror, we find out who our friends really are.

    Same thing would happen in this scenario: Say that NK launches a nuke strike on the US. Further assume that the US then retaliates with several nukes and flattens the NK capital, their military bases and their nuclear reactors. What kind of reaction do you think we're going to get from the Hollyweird contingent, to say nothing of the damned french and the egg-suckers at the UN? They would no doubt condemn our "barbarism" and our "cowboy mentality".

    I'll agree with your statement as far as it goes. But you fail to consider the mentality of the rabid fanatics of islam who would gladly incinerate themselves and the rest of the world simply to defeat the "great satan".

    Start thinking in terms of suicide bomber mentality with nukes instead of TNT.

    I don't think that we will have a nuke exchange with either Russia or China. I wouldn't say the same about NK or Iran, or any other muslim nation that gets their hands on a nuclear device.

    Further, considering the availability and transportability of small nuclear devices, I believe that the likelihood of a terrorist nuclear attack on the US is greater today than the possibility of a nuke attack by the Soviet Union during the height of the cold war.
     

Share This Page