Quote:
Originally Posted by The Deaner  I was just saying man, if we were thinking of nuking you, maybe you guys were acting like a bunch of cocks. |
Actually you are wrong for the second time in this thread. The reason US threatened with nuclear attack is they didn't want to evacuate and give up Taiwan. Britian didn't want to do likewise with Hong Kong. It all got sorted out in the end and we had our way because we have the advantage of being able to hit back more than they can take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Deaner Not if we nuked their nukes. |
MAD won't exist if your concept stands. First locations of nuclear warhead and ICBM SILOs aren't available in your tourist maps. Targeting and destroying them is a mammoth task, within 10 minutes of US attack on a couple of SILOs, the rest could launch a few supersonic Donfeng series ICBMs which three warheads in each of them, capable of turning LA or Washington DC into glass in less than 10 minutes, the KE of each ICBM being too high be be subverted by the available US ABMs systems. Unless you live in Moscow, you could always have the risk of death in the advent on such a war.
In the rare case that every SILO is simultaneously targeted and destroyed before the ICBMs could be launched, the submarines in the Indian and Pacific oceans could be deployed to launch Jalung SLBMs capable of a 100% strike rate. These factors give us a credible and strong second strike capability which coupled with the MAD method of nuclear deterrance would prevent US acting rash anytime in the near future.