<
gfre...@aol.com> wrote
>>> Bod <
bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>>
gfre...@aol.com wrote
>>>>> Bod <
bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>>>> It was an exercise of course, to test the US defences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Q_B-yaJrU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did many of you know about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Our defence (see what I did there?) seems to be "We can take a punch,
>>>>> then we will turn your country into smoking radioactive rubble. After
>>>>> that we will nuke the rubble, just to be sure".
>>>>> We don't have 15,000 war heads for nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>You sound like a little kid talking big. The whole exercise was to test
>>>>the USs defence against a possible Russian attack during the cold war.
>>>>We are allies, remember. It was for the greater good, not who was the
>>>>toughest etc.
>>
>>> Unfortunately that is our defense strategy.
>>
>>Bullshit it is.
>>
>>> Otherwise we would not only have the most conventional
>>> weapons, we have the most nuclear ones too with excellent
>>> ways to deliver both of them.
>>
>>Worked real well in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
> We blew the fuck out of them,
Odd, could have sworn that there was a lot less of that
than there was with the firestorm bombing in WW2.
> it just didn't win the war.
Funny that. It did when the russians did it with Grozny.
You buggers are slipping.
> None were actually a result of an attack on the US tho
> since we were not attacked by any of those countries.
Could have SWORN that 911 was just that.
> We just injected ourselves in someone else's civil war
Utterly mangled all over again with Iraq.
> and that seldom works particularly in the cases
> of Vietnam and Korea since we were actually
> fighting a country we went out of our way
> not to attack. (The USSR and/or China).
More utterly mindless pig ignorant shit from you with Korea.
> In the middle east we were injecting ourselves in a religious war.
More utterly mindless pig ignorant shit from you. That came later.
> That is even more futile.
Odd, could have sworn it worked in the old europe.
>>> We just get screwed when an Asymmetric Warfare
>>> group attacks us with no actual target to retaliate
>>> against so we just go blow up some unrelated (Iraq)
>>> or tangentially connected country. (Afghanistan).
>> Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.
> Funny how you give the same examples
Like hell I did with that stupid line of yours.
> and then say it is wrong. None of these examples
> really have anything to do with the WWIII scenario
> Bod was talking about tho.
Yep, I was commenting on your stupid claim about
the USA's defence strategy. It isnt just about nukes.
> A nuclear attack by a country would be
> responded to with an all out nuclear response.
Bullshit in the sense of firing off all the 15K nukes
if say Kim Jong Un fired a nuke into south Korea.
> The open question is how we would
> deal with a terrorist nuclear attack.
It certainly wouldn't be by firing off all 15K nukes the USA has.
> Based on past performance I am sure we would nuke someone.
More fool you.
> It might just be unclear who the unlucky loser should be.