Disarmament and A New Generation

[FRain]

Look up the concept of mutually assured destruction.

That's what I think is most likely if a soverign nation SERIOUSLY attempts at attacking us.

[bravo22]

The only countries with the capability to go to full-out war with America are either allies with America (i.e. western Europe) or simply are too occupied with making money from trade with America (i.e. China).

Having a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles is pretty pointless. The entire defense budget is ridiculous anyway, wasting good money on building super weapons that won't even be aggressively deployed anyway.

It doesn't matter if you build a giant wall around the country with super guns on every square inch, the terrorists won't be fazed, if they want to attack they will attack, it's a matter of whether counter-intelligence can avert it or not and certainly several thousand nuclear missiles doesn't change a thing.

[Dwood]

Western Europe wouldn't hold a candle vs U.S. currently. Their militaries are teeny.

[Limited]

The only countries with the capability to go to full-out war with America are either allies with America (i.e. western Europe) or simply are too occupied with making money from trade with America (i.e. China).

Having a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles is pretty pointless. The entire defense budget is ridiculous anyway, wasting good money on building super weapons that won't even be aggressively deployed anyway.

It doesn't matter if you build a giant wall around the country with super guns on every square inch, the terrorists won't be fazed, if they want to attack they will attack, it's a matter of whether counter-intelligence can avert it or not and certainly several thousand nuclear missiles doesn't change a thing.

The reason having a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles is important, is because you scare off other countries. The reason North Korea hasnt set off any, is because they know the US will retaliate with full force. Theres a special word for it but I cant remember it.

QUOTE=Dwood;532747]Western Europe wouldn't hold a candle vs U.S. currently. Their militaries are teeny.[/QUOTE]
, you have NO idea what your talking about, Europe doesnt boast about their nuclear missiles, unlike the US. However we have alot of firepower.

[=sw=warlord]

Western Europe wouldn't hold a candle vs U.S. currently. Their militaries are teeny.

So that's why the allies, have nearly equal number of troops in engagements and were requested by your own government to help out with the iraq invasion.
I cannot wait for snafubar to come in and shred you like a orange peel.

[Cortexian]

Western Europe wouldn't hold a candle vs U.S. currently. Their militaries are teeny.

U.S.A. PERSONNEL
Total Population: 303,824,640 [2008]
Population Available: 144,354,117 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 118,600,541 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,266,128 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 1,385,122 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 1,458,500 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 453,000 [2008]

U.K. PERSONNEL
Total Population: 60,943,912 [2008]
Population Available: 28,855,100 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 23,738,184 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 784,520 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 195,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 233,860 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 0 [2008]

That's nothing to shake a fist at, and it's hardly "teeny" since they're the 5th largest military nation. Canadian statistics for patriotism:

CANADIAN PERSONNEL
Total Population: 33,212,696 [2008]
Population Available: 15,885,472 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 13,064,205 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 442,991 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 62,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 25,000 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 9,350 [2008]

Ranked 23rd

[Bodzilla]

The reason having a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles is important, is because you scare off other countries. The reason North Korea hasnt set off any, is because they know the US will retaliate with full force. Theres a special word for it but I cant remember it.

It's called second strike

[bravo22]

The reason North Korea hasnt set off any, is because they know the US will retaliate with full force.

But isn't there the risk of fallout spreading to nearby South Korea, China, and Russia and contaminating areas in those countries? None of these countries are involved in the conflict (unless you count how China sells arms to the KPA, but as of now China's not interested in picking a fight with America). The Chinese and Russian governments may not be nice people, but they seem to like money a lot more than explosions. As for crushing the North Korean army, the American forces can do that with ease without any nukes (plus western Europe and South Korea would probably help out), the one thing America probably can't do is stamp out the Korean fighting spirit, as evidenced by the insurgency situation in Iraq.

Maybe having several nukes on hand is a good psychological deterrent, but many thousands is just overdoing it. And the actual threat right now (terrorism) doesn't seem deterred by the presence of America's big guns and big bombs.

[Limited]

The question is, which is the bigger threat, terrorists, or a nuclear attack from another country? To be honest, you need to be prepared for both of these situations. Like you said these are used as a psychological deterrent, and considering N. Korea is apparently reported to thousands of nuclear warheads, I'd say having more is better.

There is a risk of fallout, there is the risk of the earth getting blown to smithereens and everyone being vaporized if countries start to shoot of nukes all over the place. That is why we have politics and hopefully, it will never come that sort of action.

And yeah, second strike is what I was thinking Bod , I thought of first strike but thats a preemptive strike.

[=sw=warlord]

As for crushing the North Korean army, the American forces can do that with ease without any nukes (plus western Europe and South Korea would probably help out), the one thing America probably can't do is stamp out the Korean fighting spirit, as evidenced by the insurgency situation in Iraq.
America has been down that road before and we all know how that went down.

Maybe having several nukes on hand is a good psychological deterrent, but many thousands is just overdoing it. And the actual threat right now (terrorism) doesn't seem deterred by the presence of America's big guns and big bombs.
Terrorism has existed throughout the ages in one form or another, the threat isn't the terrorism itself it's the fuel that compels it, the people behind the most reported incident's don't see it as terrorism, as snaf will tell you, this has gone on for a lot longer than just Iraq and Afghanistan.
Having bigger and more bomb's won't deter them one bit, in fact it would encourage them to carry on, as they know you feel threatened by them, sort of like how a school bully may get their kicks from knowing they intimidate people.
The people who do the suicide attacks won't be deterred, the people who ambush troops won't be deterred, so explain to me how bigger bombs = more security?

We can fight the people behind the threats, but a war on terrorism is a war we will never win, it's a fight on idealism and we simply cannot fight people's ideals simply because they are different to our own.