How trigger happy do you think countries are with nukes?

How trigger happy do you think countries are with nukes?

If China started landing troops on the shore of the US how long would it take for them to get nuked?

Vice versa? Other countries?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3689537/Science-group-warns-shortcomings-U-S-missile-defense.html
youtu.be/B8g25uzB3rc?t=55m40s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The random guy who paddles over under the radar would just get plucked off.

Just assume they land troops on the ground in significant numbers for what ever reason.

simply put, nukes do not exist.

As in literally or as in no one will use them?

I'm sure if you were about to lose your entire nation you'd launch them

they cant just land troops here, even if they beat our navy (which is laughably unlikely), they would lose so many men in the process, there wouldnt be enough to occupy any meaning amount of land

we also have star wars ( i forget what the name was changed to) but we have the ability to destroy enemy nukes long before they reach us. We could eat every single nuke from every single country (except perhaps russia) and be just fine. But if we did go nuclear with russia, the whole world is set on a death switch to go with us.

After Jews are done destroying the White race they'll nuke use bio-weapons to kill off the muds

I'd hope no nuclear bombs would be set off immediately... I want a chance to enjoy the fray.

If some force did invade mainland USA they'd be plagued with every citizen with a gun. Every citizen, including myself, that can make powerful explosives. Basically the same tactics dunecoons use on us in the middle east.

Let alone our military force.

All in all I think it would be a good bonding experience for our countrymen.

So hopefully, no nukes, until we're losing.

>But if we did go nuclear with russia, the whole world is set on a death switch to go with us.

this is the important bit, I'm just curious how bad you think things would have to get for various countries to drop nukes

That's a good question.

Using nukes is like 2 siblings fighting. You don't want mom and dad to find out until one of you are losing.

Telling mom and dad =letting nukes fly.

if there is another world war and if us and russia are on opposite side, when one feels like it is about to lose, they will push the button and retreat into their bunkers. Russia has built bunkers for a decent portion of their population.

>we have the ability to destroy enemy nukes long before they reach us

What the shit. Can't tell if this is true or not. Common sense says no but I don't keep up with military tech. Tho we definitely wouldn't be able to stop EVERY nuke since there's like a hundred active ones

So you think if it were russia vs usa, when russias population from war declined to X number, probably the capacity of the bunkers, they'd push the button and get to the bunkers?
Does anyone think its possible countries would go down and not launch their nukes?

>protip: the Chinese have been building up fifth columns in western countries for the past decade

not unless their politicians were already in league with the enemy (for example, in a war against usa vs israel, the leaders of usa would help usa fail and not let usa use nukes against israel, because most in usa government like israel more than their own country).

the program name keeps changing, but apparently its currently called Missile Defense Agency, pic related

>its like hitting a bullet with another bullet

>they'd push the button and get to the bunkers?
yes and perhaps theyre able to build enough so they can strike first and not have their military depleted

>Does anyone think its possible countries would go down and not launch their nukes?
france maybe, thought even then I doubt it. The new pm in the uk has already said she is willing to use them

I think there are workable counter-measures for ICBMs, although I could be mistaken.

America is the nigger in the nuke world.
Russia is the only one doing it right.

I saw this article on DailyMail about a week ago.

>inb4 Dailymail

Makes sense to me. Even without the article I have a feeling as if the Thaad might be placebo but I mean I'd rather it be there than not. I'm just not sure if it's possible to be as good as anyone calls it out to be. Wouldn't be surprised if it also was not just some other excuse for the military to syphon a fuckload of money over to Lockheed Martin just for money to go around to the rich faggots that run those companies while kicking back funds to politicians.

Forgot link...

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3689537/Science-group-warns-shortcomings-U-S-missile-defense.html

>best military, navy and airforce in the world
>a gun behind every blade of grass
Land invasion is pretty much impossible, China is more likely to nuke first rather than have conventional warfare.

I wonder if the world will feel much different if Japan is no longer the only precedent.

What do you mean/

Russia and maybe china should have enough nukes to beat the missile defense system.

not only do we not have the ability to destroy consistently single ICBMs, we definitely cannot do it to a barrage

one small barrage will be directed directly at our invasive fleets and they have no chance to survive. they could simply strike the area 10 miles to the east of our fleet, far beyond missile countermeasures, and the entire fleet would still be vaporized

are americans really this fucking stupid?

just russia, like i said

i said we cant stop russia, but we can stop best korea for sure

...

It's apparently a nuclear free zone over here...

...but nukes are good, if someone going to nuke you, you can nuke back, so MAD and whatnot.

Like anybody could be bothered to waste a perfectly good nuke on you lot.

The most trigger happy country with nukes would be Pakistan or North Korea, but the latter hasn't developed a decent delivery system yet.

Assuming China would have landed 1 million troops on US soil, the last thing America would do is nuke. Conventional warfare would be the name of the game. Even if DC was captured.

A few generations have gone through life with the feeling like we've got a lock on this situation down to two cities way back in the past. This is our only reference for what suffering the weapons can bring on human populations.

If a nuke went off in the near future and killed 10-30k, it's not enough that you're going to be screaming nuclear holocaust, but you're suddenly living in this world where that long standing meme of "never again" no longer applies.

From the last census: 3.79 million Chinese people in the US, 1.49 in Canada
>they're already here

Quite. It also seems impossibly hard to do, I think the fastest missiles move at Mach 7.

Neither has pakistan

>how long would it take for them to get nuked?

I can't believe there are people on Sup Forums who haven't seen every nuke related documentary.
Especially this:

youtu.be/B8g25uzB3rc?t=55m40s
(55m40s)

debateable. again, it only takes a single nuke to sink our entire fleet. their tech is largely chinese so their icbms aren't really that far behind. afaik their launch failures have to do with their computer failures

I did misread your post though. sorry

It is also because Israel has Europe and the United States (if not their cities then their forces in the ME and Europe.) by the balls with their Samson option. Either you are for Israel or you get complimentary nukes.

The general idea for the USA is to be able to handle anyone else in a conventional war, so the nukes are only to be used to take out someone's ability to use nukes against us, if its believed they're going to do so.

The nations you really need to worry about throwing nukes around are the ones that would be tempted to fall back on them after losing a conventional war.

I believe tactical nukes (esp. those with a short half life) will be used

I doubt any countries (yes, even the loonies in North Korea) would willingly make a first nuclear strike

off my board nigger

this clearly isn't the strategic goal of the state dept though.

we clearly can't defeat china in a conventional war. so why are we agitating against them?

the ones we really need to worry about are pakistan and india. but we're allies with both of them, somehow.

us strategic assets are designed to intervene in weak third world countries and enforce hegemony over sea routes. that's it. we can't touch countries like china and russia with widely distributed land batteries

our carriers have exclusively been used to speedily deprive foreign dictators (who lose favor as clients of hte US) of airpower so that they can't defnd themselves.

we didn't even use them in nam because we just built airstrips.

>China building 5th columns over the past decade

>not Russia/manlet supreme

Watch RT much?

t. Wumao

What makes you think the US couldn't take China in a conventional war? If its simply a count of assets, that's been proven out of date since the first gulf war. that rated Iraq's military as the third strongest in the world by size. There was plenty of them for target practice in the end.