USA vs World? Would you go Nuclear?

Originally posted by chinawhite
Now it makes you wonder whether the russian Tsar bomb was also being designed as a doomsday boom.

Probably. I think it probably was. hit all targets in the world. buh bye!

reason

Don't end the world, what is the point? I'd surrender, but my main concern is why would anyone even try and attack a nation with nukes? And also, if your going to try and save Americans, well, surrender, you can't take out EVERY nuke launch site around the world before one gets launched at you.
But maybe if everyone wanted to invade America for no reason, and know full well that they'd die in the process, go for it, end humanity, if that's the case, we don't deserve to be here.

Originally posted by Nexus
Don't end the world, what is the point? I'd surrender, but my main concern is why would anyone even try and attack a nation with nukes? And also, if your going to try and save Americans, well, surrender, you can't take out EVERY nuke launch site around the world before one gets launched at you.
But maybe if everyone wanted to invade America for no reason, and know full well that they'd die in the process, go for it, end humanity, if that's the case, we don't deserve to be here.

Theres a reason for the policy of MAD. It deters people from nuking each other as well as nations like China or Russia from invading the U.S. which I believe is ridiculous.

Well, I would consider my chances in a prolonged war, I would consider using a well supplied, funded, and trained insurgency against the invading forces. There are 135 Million people fit for service in the US, that's one big insurgency. If my chances aren't good using that strategy then as a last resort I would use nuclear weapons to attack the invading forces/opposing countries.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, I would consider my chances in a prolonged war, I would consider using a well supplied, funded, and trained insurgency against the invading forces. There are 135 Million people fit for service in the US, that's one big insurgency. If my chances aren't good using that strategy then as a last resort I would use nuclear weapons to attack the invading forces/opposing countries.

I was thinking along these same lines. Make a general call to the populace of the US for the defense of the United States. Insert them behind enemy lines, and let them slow them down while we can rebuild our forces, and if that can't be done, then allow us time to re-work our nukes into minis in order to take out the major government facilities in the world. Also, I would use the MOAB to take out military targets (carried by our fleet of B-2's of course) that would be able to give the command to fire the missles back.

The "Insurgents" (I think that a better name would be made for them) would be given specific orders to target officers and officer meeting places.

Another thing I would consider doing would be to find a way to use an EMP generator (probably made from the remaining nukes).

Only if they had conquered the entire country, except for the nuke silos, would I let them fly. And I would shoot them off to come back down on the opposing forces, that way, they are destroyed, and we are destroyed, and the rest of the world has a few days to think about what it tried to do before it dies.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, I would consider my chances in a prolonged war, I would consider using a well supplied, funded, and trained insurgency against the invading forces. There are 135 Million people fit for service in the US, that's one big insurgency. If my chances aren't good using that strategy then as a last resort I would use nuclear weapons to attack the invading forces/opposing countries.

Insurgency would definetly be a good option to go for.

The Population of the United States is the most heavly armed in the world. (not including military). An insurgency could be very effective. very very large country to get bogged down in.

keep up the good work guys.

-Reason

Originally posted by chinawhite
Now it makes you wonder whether the russian Tsar bomb was also being designed as a doomsday boom.

Russia had plans for their own doomsday bomb that would have been even bigger then the Tsar Bomba. Its was going to be designed inside a massive cargo ship a bomb so big no plane could carry it. It was also going to be "salted" with cobalt like donwhite mentioned to make it even more deadly. I think it was also planned radioation sensors that could trigger the bomb if Russia was attacked first.

It was pretty much going to spew so much radioactive material into the atmosphere to kill all human life on the surface. It never go off the drawing board though.

They seemed to have went with the "dead hand" retaliatory system instead. A automated system that would launch Russia's nuclear weapons even if its entire command structure was wipped out in a first strike.

Originally posted by donwhite

Wait up there, L2L, I was a Geiger counter operator instructor. I learned 2 things. First, the whole US Civil Defense plan was a 14 days plan, that is, food and water for 2 weeks was stocked but after that, it was every man (and woman) for himself.
[edit on 5/31/2006 by donwhite]

It's by design though - Originally to show Russia we don't have a first strike intention.

I think a low yield terrorist detonated fission device going off in Israel or somewhere in the next few decades is possible. But full blown thermonuclear war seems improbable.

I have a question regarding the premise ?
How do you account for 80% losses to the surface and fast attack sub fleet ?
Only way I could imagine that happening is if Russia or China launched a massive nuclear first strike. And in that case, forget about it. 3-4 Ohio class SSBNs could destroy every major population center in the world. MAD would definitely apply in this situation. No other options really.

I would think this hypothetical OPFOR would have to use nukes themselves. There is not way any leader would take the chance of a massive landings without ensuring the C4i and logistical structure of the 3rd largest nation in the World, not counting the EU....yet, was in shambles. Even with the projected losses by Reason, the US would mobilize like the World has never seen. It would make WWII look like...well I do not know what it would look like but the analogy would be silly. Those losses would be made up in a year tops. I doubt the US would take the fight anywhere, but it would be one BA bristling walled camp hoping for an invasion. I would broadcast a never ending stream of propaganda about the bloodlust of the Grand Alliance (GA) and the poor US children dieing in the streets because of the cruel GA. Hollywood is not to be underestimated. Eventually the GA would suffer the weaknesses that all coalitions suffer from. Slowly through false flag ops and other dirty tricks I would seek to turn the populations of critical "node" nations against their government’s involvement in the GA. Once the alliance has fractured enough, and the US has gained key allies....Then I would let the nukes fly! LOL

There isn't enough setup information to formulate a decision. First of all, to sustain the Naval losses indicated at 80%, either this war has been going on for several years, or WMD has already been used. If the WMD genie is out of the bottle, then the response is already determined.

If, for instance, a world adversary has a new, novel and unique weapon, and is threatening invasion as you suggest, I would play my "silver bullet" first. The silver bullet of any nation is their most guarded "secret weapon". Each decade that goes by produces a different and unique "silver bullet".

Lastly, prior to any further military asset commitment, what is my adversaries losses compared to my own. Even if he has massive forces in numbers as you suggest, can he move them quickly? There is always an achilles heel, where or what is it?

Barbwire is on TV right now. A movie where America is destoyed economically and the everyone wants Canadian Dollars. Hilarious. WHY???
Cause every Country in the world that belongs to the IMF is actually a bankrupt corporation that made their population slaves so they could be finacially harvested through graduated income taxes. These countries---corporations were all incorporated in the City of London---a seperate principality---existing inside London City UK. The only countries that don't belong to the IMF happen to be the AXIS of EVIL. Now that Iraq & Afganistan have been conquered by the world bank, they will move to IRAN, igniting a planned finally world war in order to thin out the population.
BUT if the world countries were actually sovreign like most people believe and Russia's Bolshevic revolution wasn't financed by JP Morgan, the Rockefellers, & Rothchilds then one could play your game.

The invading force would probably be NATO in a surprise attack cause the U.S. won't give in the the U.N. The U.N. controlls Norad. They would disable the U.S.'s nukes and launch an invasion from MooseJaw Saskatchewan Canada into North Dakota & Montanna in order to secure the majority of Nuke silo's along the U.S. border pointed at Russia & China. Then the U.S. would be wiped out chemically & biologically and the powers that be would tell the future generations about the evil modern empire called America and how the world gov't saved its slaves from nuclear destruction. He who has the gold (not paper fiat currency) makes the rules and writes the history books. DON'T TAKE THE RED PILL!!!!!!!

I doubt the world would ever come to such a stage.
Pure conjecture IMO..
Saner minds will prevail.
Also I have always thought that any nuclear conflict will not force nations to use their entire arsenal. Maybe govts will always keep a few, say maybe 10-20% for future deterence if there were a future enemy to deter against.

I would Surrender, then Nuke the crap out of Everyone

Why kill everyone? Just kill those who killed you. And if you're alone against everyone, why fight and kill em all? If you're alone, it is a sign that you're the one who need to be destroyed. Nations are destroyed and other survive, that is the nature law.

Even if a world force would invade, they wouldn't kill everyone that is sure. And people would be a resistance. Do they killed everyone in Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan?? I don't think so.

The "doomsday bomb" scenario is the plot of the outstanding movie "Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".

Originally posted by REASON
There is much discusion on a hypothetical USA vs the World scenario.

Oh? I haven't seen it.

Which is it supposed to be? The USA rying to take over the planet or
the planet trying to destroy America? Either way, it's not going to happen.
If the world was to be rid of America it would seriously regret it instantly.
It would be on it's own without the Americans coming to the rescue -
no more financial or military help. Say bu-bye to American technology
as well. Good luck with that.

If I were president I'd drop the nukes right on the pointed heads of
the idiots who thought the world would be better off without America.

If I were president I'd drop the nukes right on the pointed heads of
the idiots who thought the world would be better off without America.

The world would be better off without the america's policies. Thanks. Stay in america, we will love you. Do wars and bring poverty and slavery, we hate you. That's simple.


[edit on 1-6-2006 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo


The world would be better off without the america's policies. Thanks. Stay in america, we will love you. Do wars and bring poverty and slavery, we hate you. That's simple.


[edit on 1-6-2006 by Vitchilo]

Wait...what stay in America...like WWI & WWII and you will love us, Huh. I do not understand this post...does anyone? Can I get a translation, please?

I think it would onley make sence to use nuclear weapons as last resort (invasion of your homeland) but if you think about it once you lonch 1 nuke everyone agenst you will send theres at you...in the end ur better to surender even if you can get most of you nukes off the ones the enemy sends at you will kill every liveing thing on ur soile (plants,animals,people,GRASS! lol,trees ect) for a very long time.....so if i was the americans i would fight till last stand but then surender....if iwas the "world" (going agenst the usa) i would not use a nuke because i think we should all face this important fact...dispite wut some people might think in non-nuclear war the americans would be sloughterd like sheep lol you wouldent even need half the world to do it..

But this is sorta a fun topic to think about just for the sake of doing so with no real intentions of it ever being true

sorry for bad spelling

Q1. How do you come by “negative” ATS points?

Q2. Are negative points better than positive points?

posted by StephenR
I think it would only make sense to use nuclear weapons as the last resort (invasion of your homeland) if you think about it once you launch 1 nuke everyone against you will send their’s at you . . in the end you’re better off to surrender (he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day) . . if I was the Americans I would fight till the last stand but then surrender as in Gen. Custer almost . . in a non-nuclear war the Americans would be slaughtered like sheep . . you wouldn’t even need half the world to do it . . this is a fun topic to think about just for the sake of doing so with no real intentions of it ever being true . . sorry for bad spelling [Edited by Don W]

Fortunately or unfortunately as you see it, no nation on this planet has sufficient shipping to invade the North American continent. We’re safe behind the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.