Takao. When you are on the brink of losing it all. Would you as as a dictatorship say "we give up" or "Alll the nukes go"? I would think I know the answer but its your answer.?? Does it matter if China let kill all of its people when the US loses the western coast altogether. You count it? You decide it? You end with it?! Sounds good? Not for me. One for You, one for me. Kph
Saving face is all important in this game…the opponent must give an opportunity to save face (to their people and the globe) - pushing either into a corner is the fatal move.
Being the sheriff at some point costs you a lot. Not blaming the people, rather the president. In Europe we call you after the ww2 taking the place of the sheriff. Whatever you call us after letting you taking the place of the sheriff.
China, after a failed invasion of, say, Taiwan, will certainly not be on the brink of "losing it all." They might not be happy about it, but a loss would not mean the ChiComs have lost it all. Nukes could also be used as a bargaining chip - We give and will withdraw our Chinese forces and you, the US, will like it or Boom! I would think that nukes would be quite persuasive if the war failed. Current Chinese ballistic missiles allow targeting of the entire US nation. The next crop of Chinese SLBMs entering service in the next few years will also have that capability. The US just losing the West Coast to Chinese nukes has not been true for some time.
This doesn’t factor in anti missile technology…who the fu%k knows how advanced or capable or not they are…we don’t.
There are all kinds of decoys and penetration aids...The ABM might hit a warhead, it might hit a decoy, it might hit 2nd stage fragments - there are many nifties to serve as destractions for ABMs. Not to mention, what would the EMP effects be for a couple of large explosions in space for both sides.
Britain & Germany - WW1. Japan & US - WW2. I have always enjoyed Norman Friedman. Worth a watch to answer your question.
Goodbye USA for Putin this chess game Like with Russia would be won with restrictions not guns. Put in the. Guns and lose the west coast incl the North Korea nukes shot. That would mean both sides totally destroyed but WHO asked the normal people??
Guns,guns and more guns. You really think more and. More nukes will win the war?? What are you willing to lose if it's not only your wesr coast? Open your mouth and say Aaaaahhh mr President!
I agree with you…but my mind goes back to September 11…the average person was out for blood…maybe the same with Pearl…there have been a number of songs about “Power to the people”, “All you need is love” , ‘Imagine’…about a hundred Dillon songs…and 70% of what came out in 1967…all intimating that the people want peace…This is a time of talking, of diplomacy…the West needs an orator, a Churchill, an Obama, a Kennedy for example to ‘talk our way out of this’…Fruits of Victory would be ashes in our mouth…
In a way I am glad the last plane did not destroy the White House. If it did....massive wave of dead muslims. Better this way although I truly am sorry for the dead in the 9/11 and hope it never happened.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the US is a republic not a democracy...The President decides the course of action, regardless if it is "popular" or not. The war in Afghanistan was not necessarily popular, but continued for many years. The pullout was also not popular, but was done any way. Biden's approval rating is down around 44%-47%, but this does not mean that he is out of a job, or can make no decisions. Trump's highest approval rating was 49%, but he went on making decisions for 4 years.
True, but that is not taking into consideration the "normal" Muslim/Afghanistani/Iraqi or "normal" Japanese persons. I highly doubt that the normal Muslim or Japanese wanted war with the US. Unfortunately, in this era of bipartisanship, the other side does not want to listen no matter what or how is said, simply because the speaker is "not our guy/gal."
You have misunderstood me. I was arguing about fewer nukes. No nukes would be best, but I doubt that will happen as all countries would have to get togther and agree to destroy all of their nuclear weapons. The US does not need, and never needed, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons(trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet). The Chinese have gotten by just as well with a few hundred, and rolled what they would have spent building thousands of warheads back into their economy. As to wanting to lose the West Coast, maybe only a Republican President...But, I doubt it, as the prevailing winds will blow all the fallout into the Midwest Bible Belt. Still, that is immaterial as the modern Chinese weapons can now cover the entire US, not just the West Coast.
The orator for the warring sides…a global speaker. A statesman. Perhaps the only thing that will end nuclear weapons is something even more deadly…not neccesarily more powerful, but more deadly.
Construction tender awarded for $270m fuel storage facility at Darwin's East Arm to support US defence operations - ABC News I watched an interview last night with a Chinese representative/analyst (don't know who)...it was difficult to watch as the Chinese gentleman became increasingly agitated and almost hysterical...He said that the South Pacific was nuclear free, but with Australia building nuclear powered submarines that that title of "nuclear free" was now no longer true and as such China is now going to target Australia with nuclear weapons...the Australian interviewer pulled him up on that for further explanation...and explained that they would not be carrying nuclear weapons...made no difference to this bloke (or China it seems). This is just an example of the bullying we get daily... To be honest, with the Marines here and their submarines and carriers re-supply in Darwin, I thought already made us targets...So this was just conformation to me...bit scary hearing it though.
