[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Spammy

No, maybe you didn't understand my point. Look at the common people in some countries burning our flag and chanting death to America, now I don't recall seeing that happen here.

Actually those people only burn flag, Americans bomb a country they hate to stone age. Look Vietnam or Korea.

Originally Posted by Spammy

Look, thew news isn't just about geo-political stuff as you think it should. When I watch the news, I don't wanna just see a bunch of political crap, I want to see variety.

Apparently variety means cover story on a major political news magazine about how a lesbian is taking celebrity pictures.

[The Deaner]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

If you reveal proofs of human rights violations you don't deserve cruel death. We thank our own spies for revealing the US motives to launch a nuclear attack on our country, shows the world who is offensive and who is defensive.

Yeah, well, maybe your nation deserved it.

[Spammy]

I'm Me will never understand the point I am making. He has issues understanding that I'm talking about common citizens, not the military or messed up goverment.

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by The Deaner

Yeah, well, maybe your nation deserved it.

Thats enligtening. Isn't it ironic that US stance changed from nuclear threats to attempts to befriend us so much that they gave us a permanent seat in the security council despite the fact that we are open and diehard military opponents and hardly ever had any common ground.

If in the rare case that US thinks like you and decides that we deserve a nuclear attack and act on it, they would have to cope with at least a 33% reduction in their population in contrast to 0.15% of ours in the first wave of attacks. I am glad US defence analysts are still aware of this fact, it takes a lot of analysis by a country which has a rougish foreign policy to realise the importance of diplomacy and peaceful coexistence. MAD, the most perfect acronym I have ever come across.

Originally Posted by Spammy

I'm Me will never understand the point I am making. He has issues understanding that I'm talking about common citizens, not the military or messed up goverment.

Do you assume that the world will kiss Americans if they let their military or government commit crimes against humanity? Be glad that none of the West Asian are nuclear and that your government is sane enough not to mess with us and not come in our way despite most of Americans wanting them to.

[The Deaner]

I was just saying man, if we were thinking of nuking you, maybe you guys were acting like a bunch of cocks.

[Ultima Dragoon]

Maybe if you were nuking them, they'd nuke you.

M A D.

[The Deaner]

Not if we nuked their nukes.

[SlabumniLoviets]

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.

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.

[The Deaner]

Actually, if the concept isn't too hard for your superior, foreign-born intelligence to grasp, I'm being sarcastic.

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

they would have to cope with at least a 33% reduction in their population in contrast to 0.15% of ours in the first wave of attacks.

I'd like to know what country on this Earth would only suffer a 0.15% population reduction in the event of a large scale nuclear attack.

Originally Posted by I'm Me

despite most of Americans wanting them to.

Somehow, I don't think you know the overall opinion of the American people at the moment. Most of us can't stand a corrupt war in Iraq, let alone a much more massive war. I'd like to believe you're in China.

[Muzzi]

I don't think they'll ever understand, if only they could stay on their own island or move in with rest us, but I don't think some of us would like that.

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Spammy

I'd like to know what country on this Earth would only suffer a 0.15% population reduction in the event of a large scale nuclear attack.

We are not assuming a world wide nuclear war. Perhaps you should have read the continuation of my post you quoted....

The destruction China faces will be 0.15% in the first wave of strikes while we can retaliate with a casualty of 33% reduction in the population of US. What follows is irrelevant as after that it is most likely to be a nuclear holocaust. There will be a lot many people in China who'll survive compared to in American in the unlikely advent of a full scale nuclear war between US and China. The geography of both countries, blast radius of a conventional fission or fusion nuclear bomb and effects of winds on nuclear radiation fallouts would ensure the effect.

Originally Posted by Spammy

Somehow, I don't think you know the overall opinion of the American people at the moment. Most of us can't stand a corrupt war in Iraq, let alone a much more massive war.

The US stance on the Iraq war changed after their apparent no-win situation. I guess they Bush and his team should have heeded our advice, but their ego and enmity with Russia and China didn't let them. And the American people were partly responsible for the current situation by first electing a despot to power and second, worse by re-electing him.

Talking about a massive war, a war between US and China is not going to happen because of political, economic, military and demographic reasons. From a political point of view, unlike Iraq this war isn't going to be one sided and will quickly escalate to a nuclear war causing devastation for both countries and maybe others too. It will then make World War 2 look like a bus accident.

Originally Posted by Spammy

I'd like to believe you're in China.

Where I am, is quite irrelevant to the topic, even if the fact that you are wrong is ignored.

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

they would have to cope with at least a 33% reduction in their population in contrast to 0.15% of ours in the first wave of attacks.

Originally Posted by I'm Me

The destruction China faces will be 0.15% in the first wave of strikes while we can retaliate with a casualty of 33% reduction in the population of US.

^Did I just make a connection between I'm Me and China?^

Anyway, I have trouble believing that in the event of a nuclear strike, only about 2 million people would die in China. Hopefully it never happens, because I see massive losses not only for China and the U.S., but the world as a whole.

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Spammy

^Did I just make a connection between I'm Me and China?^

Good discovery, much like discovering America after everyone else has found it out and settled there.

Originally Posted by Spammy

Anyway, I have trouble believing that in the event of a nuclear strike, only about 2 million people would die in China. Hopefully it never happens, because I see massive losses not only for China and the U.S., but the world as a whole.

Its all strategy.

Scenario 1 - If US nuclear attacks aims at maximum casualty for Chinese it would attack non-ABM cities which would maximise destruction but leave the retaliatory options totally open. This would give China greater weapon power for retaliation and if only 100 fusion based H-Bomb warheaded on DF5c ICBMs in released on the major US cities it could quickly eleminate more than 60% poplation (assuming a 75% accuracy in strike rate due to ABM defenses). US wouldn't want that at any cost so it will be scenario2.

Scenario 2 - This would target China's ICBM locations which US could successfully locate. The hidden underground SILOs will be inaccessible to a normal air burst or terranean nuclear bomb. This strategy will cause about 1.5 to 15 million casualties depending in the type and number of warheads used. It would invite a larger scale retaliation using SILOs based DF series ICBMs and submarine launched JL series SLBMs as a last ditch attempt. China's target would be cities for maximising destruction as targeting all nuclear installation with a handful of remaining missiles is bad strategy. This tactic would cause a loss of at least 40 million to 100 million US population if the largest 72 cities were hit.

After the first wave making up of first offensive strike and second retaliatory strike the strategy would change coupled with the movement and relocation of the population which makes predicting the outcome of the full war a near impossible task. US could win the war but with a population of 10 - 50 million it would still be a massive loss. It is a good thing there is this sense among military analysts which keeps world peace.

Both way, it will be destructive and unless it is Russia we are talking about, none have got foolproof ABM defense against multi warheaded MIRVs. Both the US and China's projects are still under development stage, China has a little edge in this area of ABM due to the recent Russian collaboration on ABM defense against US. Chinese forces wouldn't use nuclear weapons against any country unless attacked as they have a commitment to their words.

[Muzzi]

I think Anti-Americanism is required in this world, their ego has grown far bigger than their own country. The size of their aresenal of warheads own must be because they are simply attempting to compensate for something else they lack in...they can't seem to fight a real war, rather they'll crouch underneath a concerte shelter and press a few buttons hoping that whatever absurd thing they accused of terrorism gets scared or dies.

America is humanity's Attention deficit child.