USA vs World? Would you go Nuclear?

Originally posted by Schaden

I have a question regarding the premise ?
How do you account for 80% losses to the surface and fast attack sub fleet ?

To tell you the truth I made the 80% number up so that my scenario could play out where Nuks would be a very important option at the commander in cheifs disposal. If I made the figure 20% then my thread would have went in the direction of conventional war and the nuclear question would have been avoided.

80% is pretty high, and I agree, a nuclear exchange would probably be the only way to get those kind of losses but then again anything is possible.

Hey, Your fighting the world here.

Thanks
-Reason

It's interesting - and perhaps surprising - how easily people are prepared to take on the role of suicide bomber on a global scale.

Originally posted by donwhite

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

Q2. Are negative points better than positive points?

Q1: I got mine the first time I bought RATS access. I did not notice I selected "Combined Points" Instead of using my ATS points. Thus it took the access cost divided by three. That is why I have -points, but I think you can be docked as punishment...not saying that is the reason anyone has -points. I assume they did the same bone-head thing I did.

Q2: Yes they are better. And only the better people have them. They are a sign to all of why we are better than you! LOL J/K

Dbl post WTF I did not click twice....Oh and dbl posts make us better than you too! LOL

/I keed I keed

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Imperium Americana]

Originally posted by Wembley

It's interesting - and perhaps surprising - how easily people are prepared to take on the role of suicide bomber on a global scale.

For me, when I gave my answer, I thought to myself just how important the existance of the United States has been in history. Now I know that now most of the world would rather have all of us move to the moon or Mars or somewhere other than living on Earth, but the United States serves a real purpose on Earth.

The way I figured the nuke option was the fact that there would be so much pain and suffering caused by the enemies that were destroying the United States, that I figured that I would try to give them a chance by restraining the use of nuclear weapons onto my own soil. At least, maybe, they would have a chance, although, I'm sure that they probably wouldn't, which is why I said in my post that the world would have a few days to think about what it did.

In other words, I nuked the world to prevent the pain and suffering of tyrant-ruled people. IMO, it's better to be dead than to live a life where you aren't even treated like a human being, which would probably happen in a post-Nuclear Obliteration scenario.

YO donwhite

2 Q. To You, StephenR

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

Q2. Are negative points better than positive points?

thats first time anyone ever asked me that lol let me explaine...

1.im negative points because i got in truble (2 times lol) because i said somethings that i shouldent have....so BE CAREFULL WUT YOU SAY TO PEOPLE!...admins and stuff will take your points away...and dam it theay are hard to get back!

2.NO THERE NOT GOOD!...since when in life is anything negative ever good?lol its bad

and dude ur right...no country can take over north american lol... good luck getting around the BIG ASS OCEANS! on both sides ...theay invented water mines for a reasion

"In other words, I nuked the world to prevent the pain and suffering of tyrant-ruled people."

I think people are quite capable of making up their own minds on this.

Many people have lived - and many still do live - under undemocratic regimes. I've visited a few such places. Some people don't mind (and at the lower levels of existence it does not make so much difference), some actually like their system, but others do hope that their children or grandchildren will be free. I don't think killing them would be doing them a favor.

Originally posted by Wembley

"In other words, I nuked the world to prevent the pain and suffering of tyrant-ruled people."

I think people are quite capable of making up their own minds on this.

Many people have lived - and many still do live - under undemocratic regimes. I've visited a few such places. Some people don't mind (and at the lower levels of existence it does not make so much difference), some actually like their system, but others do hope that their children or grandchildren will be free. I don't think killing them would be doing them a favor.

Ok I call BS on the whole:

nd many still do live - under undemocratic regimes. I've visited a few such places. Some people don't mind (and at the lower levels of existence it does not make so much difference), some actually like their system

How did the conversation go: "Oh yes I LOOOOVVVEEE being brutaly oppressed. In some ways it is soooo much better than that freedom thing.
Please!


Or how about do not screw with us and attempt to eliminate our people, or we will see to it that all humanity dies. Simple. Attempt to wipe us out and you will find victory a bitter pill to swallow.

the problem is that typrants can be deposed , and " oppressed peoples " have frequently , with and without help risen up to free them selves from tyrany .

dead people have NEVER done anything escept pose a public health hazard

how do you think the poles , hungarians etc etc would have felt if they knew that in the late 40s they were going to be nuked into oblivion , to " save " them ???

would you want to be " saved " thus ?????

` give me libety or give me death ` is IMHO steaming munkie poo .

liberty can be regained , life cannot

[edit on 2-6-2006 by ignorant_ape]