[Warblob004]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

nuclear missiles should NEVER have existed, but one way or another, they would have been invented anyhow. But heres the thing. Right now, because we are EXTERMELY in debt to most Asian contries, and tensions of war are rising against Asia, they would probably be the first target. Now, i dont know the exact %'s, but i know that China is more rural then urban, meaning more agriculture then city, and most cities are mainly farms. This would make a pretty big decrease in food export/import, and countries not targeted may also be attacked...i never understood why the only way to counter 1 nuke was 2 nukes

[bhamlaxy]

nuclear missiles should NEVER have existed

Why not? They have brought nothing but peace and prosperity to a world-war torn world.

Right now, because we are EXTERMELY in debt to most Asian contries, and tensions of war are rising against Asia, they would probably be the first target. Now, i dont know the exact %'s, but i know that China is more rural then urban, meaning more agriculture then city, and most cities are mainly farms. This would make a pretty big decrease in food export/import, and countries not targeted may also be attacked...i never understood why the only way to counter 1 nuke was 2 nukes

I see in no way how tensions are rising for WAR with Asia. Why? Sure, they have bought some debt, but we are one of their biggest sources of money. Remember, nukes will never be used because of deterrence. Nuking an enemy who has nuclear weapons is functionally equivalent to launching them at yourself.

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by Warblob004

nuclear missiles should NEVER have existed, but one way or another, they would have been invented anyhow.

I don't see much in the rest of the thread about nuclear weapons, I'm assuming you're bemoaning their destructive properties?
Civil War (1861–1865)
Battle deaths (Union) 140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972

Spanish-American War (1898–1902)
Battle deaths 385
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061

World War I (1917–1918)
Battle deaths 53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114

World War II (1940–1945)
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842

Korean War (1950–1953)
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,833
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,672

Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Battle deaths 47,424
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,785
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000

Gulf War (1990–1991)
Battle deaths 147
Other deaths in service (theater) 382
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565

America's Wars Total
Battle deaths 653,708
Other deaths in service (theater) 14,560
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,930


Global War on Terror (as of Sept. 30, 2006)
Battle Deaths 2,333
Other Deaths (In Theater) 707

These are some pretty nasty numbers themselves. But note that after the advent of widespread nuclear armaments in the 80's, the numbers drop from tens and hundreds of thousands to mere thousands or hundreds.
Knowing the other guy has a big-ass bomb tends to keep you a bit humble about going into his country and kicking ass.

But heres the thing. Right now, because we are EXTERMELY in debt to most Asian contries, and tensions of war are rising against Asia, they would probably be the first target. Now, i dont know the exact %'s, but i know that China is more rural then urban, meaning more agriculture then city, and most cities are mainly farms. This would make a pretty big decrease in food export/import, and countries not targeted may also be attacked...i never understood why the only way to counter 1 nuke was 2 nukes

Well, we've been extremely in debt to Asian countries for almost 30 years, and yet China still enjoys "favored trading partner" status. I don't see any overt tension between the US, Europe and China, really. I see some bickering about human rights and jurisprudence, a bit of huff-and-puff about us shooting down our own satellites, but nothing like the Cold War, when I went to bed every night convinced I'd be a pile of ash in the morning, and certainly nothing like 1941, when my father was born, and was regularly called to practice bomb drills in classes.

IF, and that's a big, big, if, we targeted China for a nuclear strike, the damage to other countries would come in the form of fallout, and perhaps, perhaps, one misguided missle. We don't fuck 'round when it comes to nukes.
Secondly, the US produces more than enough food for itself, and would have little reason to bomb Western China, unless there is evidence of nuclear weaponry there. We've (mostly) learned our lessons about what happens when you drive a country completely into the ground, that's what started WWII. After WW I, the Allies demanded that Germany pay them for the trouble they went to bombing the hell out of Berlin, and that crippled the German economy.
Crippled economy + loss of fathers + unemployed youth = trouble. Even in our attack against Afghanistan, much less rich in oil than most of its neighbors, we've done little to outright ruin the economy there. Most of that is being done by regional infighting.
The only danger of not wiping out the Chinese countryside is that the one-child laws could be openly flaunted while Eastern China tried to get back in business, and the increased rural population would a) overtax the farms, causing famine, or b) fail to find gainful employment, resulting in internal disputes.

Anyway, even if tensions did get elevated, we'd have no logical reason to go at China. They have nukes. We don't want to get nuked, so we won't nuke. Easy as that.

[skayze]

Mankind has never invented a weapon that it has not used

Quoted from somwhere, cant remember.
I don't think nuclear weapons are the smartest idea for a weapon, especially when it can potentially kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, and then in addition make the land uninhabitable for decades....but Nuclear Technology is a wonderful thing.

[bhamlaxy]

Quoted from somwhere, cant remember.
I don't think nuclear weapons are the smartest idea for a weapon, especially when it can potentially kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, and then in addition make the land uninhabitable for decades....but Nuclear Technology is a wonderful thing.

Yea, and we used nukes once. Man will never use nuclear weapons on another nation who has them. Thats why we see a more peaceful global atmosphere post-nuclear weapons. World Wars can kill hundreds and thousands, if not millions of people, and it can shatter economies for decades, and it isn't suicidal to go to war, as proven by every single conflict between big powers up until the 1940's. But it is suicidal to have a nuclear war.