• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How bad would a war have to get before someone considers using nukes?

Depends on the country.

I have a feeling Iran will eventually "lose" a nuke, and very bad things may happen.
 
Originally posted by: RoloMather
For countries that have nukes, what's the lowest threshold before one of them is used?
Click to expand...

Define "threshold" RoloMather.
 
I know it's against policy now, but joshsquall, could you please now use your newly-acquired power as master of this thread and nuke it from orbit? I'm sick of these damn rolomather threads.

I think it must be tridentboy, or something....
 
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Mojoed
Depends on the country.

I have a feeling Iran will eventually "lose" a nuke, and very bad things may happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think the people in charge of Iran are that stupid.
Click to expand...

They are that crazy, though. No doubt they'll pin it on being stolen from Pakistan or something.


For any of the superpowers to start using nukes, they would only do so with the knowledge that their enemies can't (sabotage).
 
Probably invasion and/or bombardment with near certain defeat. In this case I think the likelihood increases many fold if the country in question is a dictatorship or something close to it.
 
it won't be their joke of an administration that nukes us, it will be some radical group. we should just clean up their mess now.
 
Originally posted by: Newbian
It only takes one to start until everyone else wants to use their fireworks.
Click to expand...

and that's the real problem. more then likely a nuclear event will take place in the next 20 years or less. Once it starts, how will it end. I suspect the US would absorb atleast 2 hits in an effort to limit or stop such an event.

 
at least they are still comparatively hard to come by, and third world nukes are in the less-than-10 kiloton range. i'm not saying people couldn't get hurt, because they absolutely would. but if we had to justify erasing a country, at least we can actually get through it. when you think about nuclear terrorism, you are talking about a very small, very light, very low-yield device. how else are you going to get it into this country? and what are you going to do with it, put it in a truck or a car? thermonuclear weapons weigh in at hundreds of pounds.

unless china and india start handing out their technology to faggots, a terror-nuke isn't going to be delivered by an aircraft or a rocket. it's going to be a small piece of shit, and it's going to be sneaked in.
 
Originally posted by: alyarb
at least they are still comparatively hard to come by, and third world nukes are in the less-than-10 kiloton range. i'm not saying people couldn't get hurt, because they absolutely would. but if we had to justify erasing a country, at least we can actually get through it. when you think about nuclear terrorism, you are talking about a very small, very light, very low-yield device. how else are you going to get it into this country? and what are you going to do with it, put it in a truck or a car? thermonuclear weapons weigh in at hundreds of pounds.

unless china and india start handing out their technology to faggots, a terror-nuke isn't going to be delivered by an aircraft or a rocket. it's going to be a small piece of shit, and it's going to be sneaked in.
Click to expand...

I blame the snukes.
 
Originally posted by: alyarb
at least they are still comparatively hard to come by, and third world nukes are in the less-than-10 kiloton range. i'm not saying people couldn't get hurt, because they absolutely would. but if we had to justify erasing a country, at least we can actually get through it. when you think about nuclear terrorism, you are talking about a very small, very light, very low-yield device. how else are you going to get it into this country? and what are you going to do with it, put it in a truck or a car? thermonuclear weapons weigh in at hundreds of pounds.

unless china and india start handing out their technology to faggots, a terror-nuke isn't going to be delivered by an aircraft or a rocket. it's going to be a small piece of shit, and it's going to be sneaked in.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think Perez Hilton would want one for Miss California.
 
i'm just saying, lightweight or man-portable nukes are much less than 0.5 kiloton yield, and require loads of manufacturing experience. the soviets never had miniaturized weapons like this, so where are terrorists going to get them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top