- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What is the relative size and strength of the militaries? The goal in war is not and should not be to destroy all the people of a nation.
Since China has 1,300 million people and the United States has less than a quarter of that, should the United States resume intensive studies of enhanced radiation weapons to prepare for possible future armed conflict with an enemy that could field an army four times the size of ours?
I argue that it may become necessary for the US to employ nuclear weapons on US soil, and in that event, it would be ideal to minimize the damage from blast and fallout and concentrate the weapon's effects on the enemy invaders.
The goal of war is first and foremost survival.
I say enhanced radiation weapons technology would give us an edge on minimizing damage to civillian structures, ours and theirs, and optimize the damage inflicted to the enemy military.
However, if the complete and total destruction of a nation's populace is the only way to secure survival, then such destruction becomes a legitimate goal.
I can't really see that happening, and that's not what the poll is asking.
Yes.
If we don't have it going on now, we should resume.
If we can't get public support, we should keep it secret.
It just occured to me.
That China is our Number One worst enemy isn't something the American public should be allowed to forget.
So you support the government doing whatever it wants, and just not telling the people? Interesting idea....
Yes, that's exactly what I said :roll:
You are the first person I have ever said this too, but...Get the hell out of my country, we don't need your kind here.
Destroy their military, which should be doable, and they are no threat.
Why do you think killing millions of innocent Chinease will make us safer. Destroy their military, which should be doable, and they are no threat.
Besides, we have more than enough nukes now to destroy any country in it's totality without making new weapons.
You're right, we need an anti-missile laser.
oh crap, but then they'll make an anti-missile laser missile.
So we'll need an anti-missile laser missile laser lego missile space station missile....laser...thingy....
Anti any weapon systems tend to be big failures. It is usually cheaper to change the weapon enough to defeat the anti system, than it is to make the anti system. AEGIS is something of an exception.
China and the U.S. are unlikely to ever be able to invade each other. The logistics involved supported an army thousands of miles from home is incredible. I doubt either country could gain such a vast advantage over the other to make some sort of an Invasion possible.
The U.S. is the by far the hardest country to invade on the planet. We have a large population, a huge industrial base, and no powerful (or hostile) land connected neighbors. I doubt we will ever even face the possibility of invasion in my lifetime.
And all of this is assuming that China somehow figures out of way to negate our world-obliterating nuclear arsenal.
I argue that it may become necessary for the US to employ nuclear weapons on US soil, and in that event, it would be ideal to minimize the damage from blast and fallout and concentrate the weapon's effects on the enemy invaders.
Uh, to produce sufficent quantities of neutrons to have the desired effect as a viable weapon, you need to produce a fission reaction of such size that everyone you're trying to kill with neutron radiation is already vaporized.
Thus, your weapon idea is self defeating. Also, that's one of the (many) reasons why neutron bombs never were feasibly built.
Not so much.
Seriously? You're going to have to provide a much more credible (and scientifically accurate) site.
Furthermore, it appears that Red Mercury is nothing more than red dyes used by counter terrorist groups to essentially entrap potential terrorists.
Red mercury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I saw that. Its a lot of back and forth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?