Strongest Army in the world?

Atomic bombs are nukes

 

Well, if you rule out the atomic bombs , I really don`t think the US would have enough bombs stockpiled, to blow away all the defenses of several nations in such a short period of time... not to mention to do that effectively, they`d have to knock out the gps jammers first(obviously, even though their weap.s have resistance to current black market jammers, I don`t know ìf they can stand more powerful military versions... which shouldn`t be as easy to find.)...

Also, from what I`ve heard, a nation just has to launch a small nuke into low orbit, and the gps would go out of commision... that would make it even harder to wipe out the defenses...

But we weren`t talking about defenses, we were talking about a nation`s population... In a place like china that would take quite an insane amount of bombs... ok, so china is large, but even in a smaller nation you`d basically have to bomb every house-building....

EDITEDii

In any case, with a large debt acquired, and with many a satellites gone(obviously if they begin to lose to the gps weapons... they`re gonna nuke the gps...)... If such events took place the world`s economy would be in jeopardy...

 

OMG...

 

CosmoKramer wrote:

 

Rolleyes for Skywalker, not you.

 

If I recall correctly, it was a political stalemate. Militarily, the US was pushing the Chinese back (and at one point US pushed all the way to the Yalu river and could have crossed into China). MacArthur wanted to bomb chinese factories, power plants, bridges, and dams to cut supplies and cause a huge humanitarian problem for them which would prevent them from sustaining foreign operations. Like Vietnam, the "stalemate" existed because the US did not want to "widen" the war, *even though the chinese already had technically widened it by sending forces into Korea* Strange that the US government accepted the presence of huge numbers of belligerent foreign forces killing UN troops, but would not consider the enemy's territory "fair game"


In the modern era, the US would not settle for a stale mate. If a neighboring country gets involved, they go on the bomb target/invasion list.

 

Let me clarify what I meant. When I hear "nukes" I think of fusion bombs...I was speaking of the fission bombs we used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sorry for the confusion!

 

I'm not so sure, isn't GPS shielded against EMP? I think the MILSTAR (communication sat) spec was actually designed in the '80s to bypass nuclear winter type conditions; and something tells me GPS was similiar due to it's origional ColdWar conception. Maybe Democoder knows more, he's pretty good with this stuff...

Cos, there is many things to diagree with her on; unfortunatly this isn't one of them. The nomenclature she used is in common useage is, infact, correct. Well, I suppose by right an 'Atomic level weapon' would be a chemical based device as it's electromagnetically powered where as a nuclear device uses, the strong and weak nuclear forces, right?

Anyways, she' good.

Don't compliment much, but great short history.

 

I think its better to spend the money to avoid war, if that at all possible.

Spend money to improve relationship between nations Not building more weapons that will only increased tension.

 

You are right, but at the same time I like having a large competent military force. It really does make countries think about messing with you. After the current affairs it might have increased tension, but I guarantee that Syria is telling hamas, you are not to launch any attacks directly on American civillians. And other countries are doing the same. After what happened to afganistan they don't want to lose their little fiefdoms.

The best way to peace though is to make it so people are happy with their lives, so maybe we should just dump planeloads of prozac lol./

 

But is it moral to "improve relations with" (and legitimize) dictatorial thuggish regimes? Isn't that just aiding in the slaughter of the countries you are "improving relations" with? Won't we be accused of "cuddling dictators" by the self righteous left?

 

Vince: Atomic bombs are nukes. I don't know why you even want to argue about this.

Nuclear bombs can be both of the fission or fusion kind. I think that you are confused by the fact that "atomic bombs" usually only refers to the fission kind nowadays. Obviously this doesn't change the fact that they still are nuclear weapons (nukes).

 

But it's moral to support dictatorial regiems which are in the US's national interests? The only solution would be to use the same standard/policy on all states. Draw your line of what counts as a democratic/non-dictatorial/thuggish state and exercise the same policy on ALL of them. The question really is does moral values take precedence over economic and political feasibility.

 

If you're truly trying to improve relationship and not just dumping cash, sure it is moral to improve relationship with another country, even if that country is under a thuggish regimes. Things won't always goes well, but you shouldn't lose heart and keep trying.

Are you improving relation with that thuggish dictator or with that country ?

 

Explain to me why it is moral to improve relations with other countries, regardless of those countries behavior?

Are you saying that good relations with an entity are a moral good in and of itself, over and above that entity's own behavior?


Is improving relations with Hitler a moral good?

 

Better yet, explain exactly how you would spend the money on "improving relations with another country", specifically.

In other words, if one would rather not spend a certain a certain amount of money on R&D on new technologies for defense weapons, how would you spend that money instead on "improving relations" with a country in question?

For specific circumstances, I'll give you the following:

-Cuba during the Kennedy years...
-USSR during its heyday...
-North Korea today...

I'm just curiosus... Although it sounds well and good to want to spend money "improving relations with other countries", that's not always possible if the other country doesn't want the same thing.

How do you "spend money" improving relations with your signifigant other if he/she no longer wants to be in the relationship, for instance? It's not always possible, man... That's why we have a military.

 

Well, I'm not sure either... All I know is I heard that a few weeks-months ago in the news, or in a science mag. IOW very recently.

What I heard was that a nuke launched about 1mile up and detonated would fry the circuitry of many satellites near the earth, including gps... but someone needs to find info to confirm or deny this... I'll look for it later...

 

Well, if you don't, they'll behave like that. Their behavior towards you is the result of the relationship you have with them. And that relationship don't develop over night either.

Take the mild strain the US had with French recently for example, if you don't try to improve that now, 100 years down the road, relationship could turn for worst.

If the Jews have a good relationship with Hitler, the bad things could have been avoided. The better your relationship are, the easier it should be to settle things diplomatically instead of through war.

Like I couldn't built a super weapon when you dump money on me, I don't have all the answer either. But if you look at the damage from war and terrorist attacks, is a more devastating weapons the solution ?

If the investment is made to improve relationship, solutions will come eventually.

When you get to that point, its difficult, but you have to try not to get to that point. However, when you get to that point you can look back, on what went wrong.

But at least, when you do get to that point, you want to make sure, you get off on the right point and make sure, he/she doesn't feel threaten or he/she come after you, that you required military.


War and terrorist attacks are the culmination of strained relationship or no relationship at all. More devestating weapon will only worsen relationship.

Like USSR and US during those years, its sigh of relief when the leaders shaked hand.

 

Boy are you naive.

 

Thats quite funny but also rather sad.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

-Neutrality-