How would Russia, China, Iran & North Korea react if........

[Dayton3]

...a candidate was elected president of the U.S. who vowed to "effectively destroy" those nations (or at least their governments and nuclear arsenals?

 

[presonorek]

...a candidate was elected president of the U.S. who vowed to "effectively destroy" those nations (or at least their governments and nuclear arsenals?

They’d probably be sad.

 

[Donald H]

...a candidate was elected president of the U.S. who vowed to "effectively destroy" those nations (or at least their governments and nuclear arsenals?

Those and the rest of the Brics nations would react with MAD.

And baby Dayton would become a freedom fry!

 

[presonorek]

Those and the rest of the Brics nations would react with MAD.

And baby Dayton would become a freedom fry!

Nuclear weapons have really changed the game of war for the better. No two countries possessing nukes have ever went to war against each other. The war nowadays is done economically.

 

[luiza]

They will continue to shred it , exactly as they are doing now . Watch out when the banks go -- this month or next?

 

[Dayton3]

Nuclear weapons have really changed the game of war for the better. No two countries possessing nukes have ever went to war against each other. The war nowadays is done economically.

Not quite true. China and the Soviet Union fought a border war in the 1960s

 

[Anomalism]

Watch out when the banks go -- this month or next?

How many times in your life have you predicted things like this and been wrong?

 

[Donald H]

Nuclear weapons have really changed the game of war for the better.

Yes!

No two countries possessing nukes have ever went to war against each other. The war nowadays is done economically.

But America and Russia are at war with each other.

America is running an experiment to find a way around having to consider the MAD question.

Or if you prefer, Russia is running the experiment.

Are you saying that you're interested in the a discussion with me? If so then you'll find me very agreeable.

 

[lennypartiv]

...a candidate was elected president of the U.S. who vowed to "effectively destroy" those nations (or at least their governments and nuclear arsenals?

Not the same identical threat, but interesting none the less.

---China's New Map Claims Swathes of Neighboring Territory---

---A new map of China's national borders has sparked protests from governments in Asia after its boundaries drew in the territories of its neighbors—including a small chunk of Russia.---

---The map, published on Monday by China's Ministry of Natural Resources, lays claim to disputed land on its southern border with India and encompasses all of Taiwan. Off its southern coast, Beijing's so-called "dashed line" captures huge tracts of the South China Sea, where islands, reefs and maritime zones are contested by half a dozen countries.---

MSN

 

[1srelluc]

Who cares?

 

[presonorek]

Not quite true. China and the Soviet Union fought a border war in the 1960s

Well. I was lied to.

 

[presonorek]

How many times in your life have you predicted things like this and been wrong?

For me it has been 8.

 

[Mushroom]

...a candidate was elected president of the U.S. who vowed to "effectively destroy" those nations (or at least their governments and nuclear arsenals?

Would not matter at all, as such a candidate would never be elected to any meaningful office.

 

[Mushroom]

No two countries possessing nukes have ever went to war against each other.

India and Pakistan. China and the Soviet Union. India and China. Those are just three off the top of my head.

 

[Dayton3]

Would not matter at all, as such a candidate would never be elected to any meaningful office.

Why not? Americans have elected pro war candidates before.

 

[Vrenn]

Would not matter at all, as such a candidate would never be elected to any meaningful office.

Take a good look at politics today

 

[Mushroom]

Why not? Americans have elected pro war candidates before.

There is a difference between "pro war" and "Lunatic that wants to start a global world war".

Most of the electorate is aware of the difference. I can't think of a single "Pro War" candidate that got elected in over a century.

 

[Dayton3]

There is a difference between "pro war" and "Lunatic that wants to start a global world war".

Most of the electorate is aware of the difference. I can't think of a single "Pro War" candidate that got elected in over a century.

Bush was elected in 2000 and he outright said in National Review that he would consider his presidency a failure if Saddam Hussein was still in power when he (Bush) left office.

 

[Mushroom]

Bush was elected in 2000 and he outright said in National Review that he would consider his presidency a failure if Saddam Hussein was still in power when he (Bush) left office.

Not the same thing at all.

 

[Dayton3]

Not the same thing at all.

close enough