Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Tough Question for you to Think About

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SeekandDestroy
    replied
    i would capture their leader, blow him.............up, and then make peace with the other iraquis...i mean people of the other country...

    Leave a comment:


  • tpryce93
    replied
    Originally posted by NJBRONCOSFAN
    I'm not sure what i'd do.
    I know two things though.
    I wouldnt surrender.
    I wouldn't fight back with nuclear weapons..there'd be no humans left on earth shortly.
    the only thing that's gonna survive the nuclear are cockroaches. just sit back and watch

    Leave a comment:


  • WhoDeyBengals
    replied
    Originally posted by Nomad Broncofan
    NO NUKES! I mean loading every bomber we have B1's, B52's, Stealth and whatever else can throw fire power at them, even cruise missles from subs and ships at sea. And after they get that done send your special forces in to start looking for the leaders and then the marines and army to bring order and stablize the situation and take control. It's not to take control of that country but to make sure they don't try to bomb us again. Then bring in the draft to see who the real patriots are because your country was attacked but half would hide.
    Cool, then I think we agree. I'm all for surgical strikes on all known missile sites. Cripple their capability to launch again. However, I don't see the necessity of adding conscription to the response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nomad Broncofan
    replied
    Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals
    Question: by "demolish," do you mean by using the nuclear option?

    If so, would you really send in infantry to mop up?

    NO NUKES! I mean loading every bomber we have B1's, B52's, Stealth and whatever else can throw fire power at them, even cruise missles from subs and ships at sea. And after they get that done send your special forces in to start looking for the leaders and then the marines and army to bring order and stablize the situation and take control. It's not to take control of that country but to make sure they don't try to bomb us again. Then bring in the draft to see who the real patriots are because your country was attacked but half would hide.

    Leave a comment:


  • WhoDeyBengals
    replied
    Originally posted by Nomad Broncofan
    Agreeing with DN, we have well up to date technology to deal with this matter. The military does exercises like this all the time to stay prepared and each branch has there own assignments. The US will never let their guard down when it comes to another country attacking us. They learned this back in 1941 and it wasn't even the mainland and no you can't compare a missle attack to hijacking an airplane like 911 (no one said it just threw this in there). They are always watching every move of those countries and if a missle were fired, it would be intercepted before getting halfway over the Pacific, then every bomber we have would be bombing the crap out of that country. I would feel bad for the civilians but there would be no time to pick and choose. There would be no time to send in SEAL or RECON teams because the leaders of that country would be well hidden and underground. So demolish their country until everything is gone then send in the special forces to hunt people down and then our infantry and armored divisions to wipe up the mess. Never surrender to an enemy and if someone attacks you there is no time for diplomacy, because they attacked you.
    Question: by "demolish," do you mean by using the nuclear option?

    If so, would you really send in infantry to mop up?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nomad Broncofan
    replied
    Originally posted by Denver Native
    As I retired from a major Aerospace company, I do know that the US has the technology to track missles from other countries, and destroy them before they ever hit the US. This is technology I was aware of about 6 years ago, and I am sure there is alot more that has been done since 911 throughout all Aerospace companies.

    Agreeing with DN, we have well up to date technology to deal with this matter. The military does exercises like this all the time to stay prepared and each branch has there own assignments. The US will never let their guard down when it comes to another country attacking us. They learned this back in 1941 and it wasn't even the mainland and no you can't compare a missle attack to hijacking an airplane like 911 (no one said it just threw this in there). They are always watching every move of those countries and if a missle were fired, it would be intercepted before getting halfway over the Pacific, then every bomber we have would be bombing the crap out of that country. I would feel bad for the civilians but there would be no time to pick and choose. There would be no time to send in SEAL or RECON teams because the leaders of that country would be well hidden and underground. So demolish their country until everything is gone then send in the special forces to hunt people down and then our infantry and armored divisions to wipe up the mess. Never surrender to an enemy and if someone attacks you there is no time for diplomacy, because they attacked you.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolitis
    replied
    Originally posted by Bronco_f1
    So, I was thinking about this last week, and I was planning to post this here.

    Here's the Dilemma. Imagine you would be the President of the United States, and for some reason, a country with nuclear power which does not have excelent relations with the US (China, Russia, Pakistan, India) would throw an atomic bomb into one of the states.

    After this attack, you would have to face a very difficult choice, to attack back ot to surrender. Now, remember that countries that produce nuclear bombs now have missiles that could destroy an area as large as the entire US, some even have some missiles that could destroy the world, so if you would be to attack back, you might take the risk of getting attacked again. Remember that these countries move their missiles into different territories, not always in their own country.

    So what would you do? Attack back or surrender.

    I know, its a difficult decision, but I want to know your opinions
    Attack. We are the most powerful nation in the world right now. If we alowed other countries to do whatever they feel like we would not be that anymore. If we attacked wure it would mean lives. But if we didn't it would mean our country.

    Leave a comment:


  • Buff_bronc_fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Bronco_f1
    So, I was thinking about this last week, and I was planning to post this here.

    Here's the Dilemma. Imagine you would be the President of the United States, and for some reason, a country with nuclear power which does not have excelent relations with the US (China, Russia, Pakistan, India) would throw an atomic bomb into one of the states.

    After this attack, you would have to face a very difficult choice, to attack back ot to surrender. Now, remember that countries that produce nuclear bombs now have missiles that could destroy an area as large as the entire US, some even have some missiles that could destroy the world, so if you would be to attack back, you might take the risk of getting attacked again. Remember that these countries move their missiles into different territories, not always in their own country.

    So what would you do? Attack back or surrender.

    I know, its a difficult decision, but I want to know your opinions
    You have to launch... There's simply no choice. The whole reasoning behind not using nuclear weapons is that you can be sure that if you drop one, you will have one in your lap in no time.

    Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is the doctrine of military strategy in which a full scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. It is also cited by gun control opponents as the reason why crime rates sometimes tend to be lower in heavily armed populations. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome
    www.wikipedia.org

    Leave a comment:


  • WhoDeyBengals
    replied
    Originally posted by Eldritch
    Curses!!


    Eh, yeah. I'm a geek, never denied it. Besides, dropping references like that makes me sound worldly.
    No worries. I'm a major geek too. I just was never big on the original series. Next Generation (minus that little dork Wesley) was my fav.

    But yeah, nuking France? Hmmm... can we like, dig up their vineyards and move them first?

    Leave a comment:


  • Eldritch
    replied
    Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals
    Without blatantly exposing my wiki... er source, you're a major geek
    Curses!!


    Eh, yeah. I'm a geek, never denied it. Besides, dropping references like that makes me sound worldly.

    Leave a comment:


  • WhoDeyBengals
    replied
    Originally posted by Eldritch
    Without blatantly exposing the reference, it is essentially a way of saying I am going to change the premise. That's why for me, the bomb didn't explode in the US. I was able to redirect it to blow up France and make everything better.
    Without blatantly exposing my wiki... er source, you're a major geek

    Leave a comment:


  • Eldritch
    replied
    Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals
    I don't even get the Kobiyashi thing, anyhow...
    Without blatantly exposing the reference, it is essentially a way of saying I am going to change the premise. That's why for me, the bomb didn't explode in the US. I was able to redirect it to blow up France and make everything better.

    Leave a comment:


  • WhoDeyBengals
    replied
    Originally posted by Eldritch
    Okay, I think we're miscommunicating here....
    I don't even get the Kobiyashi thing, anyhow...

    Leave a comment:


  • Eldritch
    replied
    Originally posted by The Dark Knight
    Well, that's not Kobiyashi Maru for everyone.

    Not everybody likes France.
    Okay, I think we're miscommunicating here....

    Leave a comment:


  • The Dark Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Eldritch
    I'm going to go all Kobiyashi Maru on everyone, and I'd deflect the bomb to France!

    Well, that's not Kobiyashi Maru for everyone.

    Not everybody likes France.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X