OT Can a country with 18 nukes win a nuclear war against a country with 1800 nukes

I agree. Whatever damage "B" could inflict on "A" there's no chance that "A" is not going to respond severely.

"B" has has a number of problems that are not exposed in the over-simplified scenario.

I can't see "A" surrendering as long as they still have a competent capacity to remove "B" from the map.

Ending "B's" existence won't end the enormous "pain" that was inflicted on "A"; but then neither does surrendering to "B" end "A's" pain.

I would be more concerned about what the sudden destabilation that "A's capituation would cause on the world scene. If "A" did surrender to "B", then at best: the rest of the free world falls with "A".

Worst case? "A" not only lost the war with "B", but suffered even more from a second war over who would control the world in "A's" absence.

Drop some food on them. They'll change tunes real fast.

Oh, yeah. Libs have been ever-so-sweet to everyone lately. Sure.

You can't define "liberal" any better than any other right-wingnut knuckle-dragger who can't define it. It's just a swearword to you.

Hey Wieber, explain how so many whose "brains have fallen out" have done so much better than you. While you're at it, explain how anyone, of any political stripe, could have done worse than you. Start by naming anyone who has more liens than you. Head start, click here on your own record.

Search for any other name at that site who's worse off.

My prediction: you will fail to prove anyone else has done worse than you. Instead, you'll write more BS, thereby demonstrating how and why you're the best example of brainless "conservate" failure that any of us has ever heard of.

Paraphrasing an example given by Carl Sagan: The leader of Country A and th e leader of Country B are standing in a room, knee-deep in gasoline. Leader A has 1800 books of matches. Leader B has 18 books of matches. Now, descri be a scenario that comes out good for either of them.

V

Very carefully back away being carefull not to draw a spark and hope the other bastard doesn't light a match before you get out - and a long way away!!!

You are describing MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) described as " a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

In the case above numbers of matchbooks is probably immaterial.

the leader of Country B are standing in a room, knee-deep in gasoline. Lead er A has 1800 books of matches. Leader B has 18 books of matches. Now, desc ribe a scenario that comes out good for either of them.

So, that example was pretty extreme, but not far from reality. Here's anoth er, describing an entirely different type of fight. This was a scene in an episode of MASH, when Colonel Potter was explaining to Hawkeye why he had to fire his sidearm (while they were both a little drunk and pinned down in a roadside ditch:

"First they shoot. Then we shoot. Then they shoot. Then we shoot. Whoever s hoots last, wins."

Or, A walks toward B, feigning concession, with his right hand out. Unbeknownst to B, A also picks up a long screwdriver off the bench as he approaches. Evil B is then flushed from the world, easing world tension immediately. His kind of evil has to be snuffed out before it spreads.

Unfortunately, A is forced to continue to play World Cop for both his own country's and the world's sake, like it or not.

The rest of us live happily ever after, -if- the other evil, Party D in A's country, doesn't take them down internally in the interim, as they are trying. I'm reading Dinesh D'Souza's _America: Imagine A World Without Her_, where he brings up even more dirt on the evil Dems. He's a former White House analyst, and his deep research has permitted him to show to us a lot of connections we might otherwise overlook, or pay lesser attention to. Highly recommended book.

You don't have to imagine a world without American power, just study world history before 1945.

Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017

17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?

-- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

Into radioactive amoebas. ;-)

Nobody wins a nuclear war. Everybody loses...even those who choose not to participate.

Michael A Terrell on Thu, 7 Dec 2017

18:25:03 -0500 typed >> Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017

Traditional carpet bombing will do that?

-- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

Sure, if they are working in a hidden nuclear bomb factory. ;-)

Michael A Terrell on Fri, 8 Dec 2017

11:11:00 -0500 typed >> Michael A Terrell on Thu, 7 Dec 2017

Is that some new kind of ISIS IED - the Nuclear Carpet Bomb?

-- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

Does Pyongyang look like a stone age city to you? north Korea cities - Google Search

They will need to take out the capital and any sites Poindexter may hide in, and then target all military areas; IF he launches.

Larry Jaques on Fri, 08 Dec 2017

19:55:37 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

And Pyongyang is the exemplar of all of Korea. then. And the quote "poverty" unquote must be just South Korean propaganda.

After all, no one in the Capital is suffering.

-- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."