Pentagon doesn't know what else to do with their nukes

[St. Toxic]

As far as I know, Sweden was the only winner in the second world war.

[CrazyNick]

BWAHAHAHAHA! Sweden?
They didn't get shit all from the war cept piss off a few countries by remaining neutral throughout the war.

And King of Creation you arn't reading the full posts. Or at least not properly.

Nukes has been engineered to become more desctructive. This means that they blow up bigger and emmit more radiation over a loger period of time.

Hydrogen bombs are unrealistic because they take years to manufacture and take as much money as the space shuttle program to build and maintain ONE for a year.

This is why the US only has a handful of Hydrogen bombs (luckly enough)

Hydrogen bombs created enough dust and debris to block the sun for a day or two

[St. Toxic]

BWAHAHAHAHA! Sweden?
They didn't get shit all from the war cept piss off a few countries by remaining neutral throughout the war.

What of the swedish industries friend? The one nobody bombed? All the things they manufactured and made them money, that gave them the worlds best economy for over thirty years? Not to mention the funding these industries provided to general research, giving the small country a place on the technoindustrial charts as well.

What of the human casualties of the other countries? I know Russia lost over 22 million good men, and the States have that funky graveyard filled with beach attack corpses. I hardly sit on any records about how many canadians, frenchies or brits died, but I'm pretty sure the swedes made it out o.k, not being in the war and all. Or, what do you think?

Sounds like victory to me.

[Spazmo]

Are you sure you don't mean Switzerland in any case?

[Ranger]

Oh, and the Nuclear winter theory? Just that. A theory. It can't be proven unless there is an actual nuclear exchange. It is a plausible theory, but one that is full of holes. We haven't had enough time to study it, to fully understand all of the implications of it. It's like evolution and creationism. Evolution is a theory that is based on millions of years of development and obviously the theory hasn't been around that long to see it in practice. Creationism is just an idea that people have that's supposedly passed on from God. Many scientists discount the nuclear winter theory but it is based on the idea that all the nuclear material raised in the atmosphere through the mushroom clouds and through the burning buildings and so on and so on.. would effectively block out the sun and lower the earth's temperature so low that we would be in a perpetual state of winter. None of the figures I have seen would lead to belive that nuclear winter would last for hundreds of years. But, if it was real, we would have radioactive snow falling all throughout the globe. BUT my point still remains, if an all out war would take place and the US would be attacked by every other country, we would have no option but to use our nukes. And despite what has been said, a lot of other people have them, and have the ability to send them here. You really think russia doesn't have any? They didn't lose them all and they do have the tech to hit us. As well as China, britain, germany, france. We do NOT have a monoploly on world power, and ther is not enough resources to support our country indefinetly in our possesion. If we used all the oil on US soil, we would have enough to support our oil guzzling economy for a year tops. We would lose. We would all lose. The idea that America is invincible is just propoganda, like what they tried to drill into my head in the army. We could take on the world piecemeal, but not all at once.

[Redeye]

Oh, and the Nuclear winter theory? Just that. A theory. It can't be proven unless there is an actual nuclear exchange. It is a plausible theory, but one that is full of holes. We haven't had enough time to study it, to fully understand all of the implications of it. It's like evolution and creationism. Evolution is a theory that is based on millions of years of development and obviously the theory hasn't been around that long to see it in practice. Creationism is just an idea that people have that's supposedly passed on from God. Many scientists discount the nuclear winter theory but it is based on the idea that all the nuclear material raised in the atmosphere through the mushroom clouds and through the burning buildings and so on and so on.. would effectively block out the sun and lower the earth's temperature so low that we would be in a perpetual state of winter. None of the figures I have seen would lead to belive that nuclear winter would last for hundreds of years. But, if it was real, we would have radioactive snow falling all throughout the globe. BUT my point still remains, if an all out war would take place and the US would be attacked by every other country, we would have no option but to use our nukes. And despite what has been said, a lot of other people have them, and have the ability to send them here. You really think russia doesn't have any? They didn't lose them all and they do have the tech to hit us. As well as China, britain, germany, france. We do NOT have a monoploly on world power, and ther is not enough resources to support our country indefinetly in our possesion. If we used all the oil on US soil, we would have enough to support our oil guzzling economy for a year tops. We would lose. We would all lose. The idea that America is invincible is just propoganda, like what they tried to drill into my head in the army. We could take on the world piecemeal, but not all at once.

Other nukes... Israel, South Africa(claim to have made a couple back in the '70s then dismantled them.).
I thought Sweden retains the option of making some.(wtf?)
Secret tunnels under the White Desert in Argentina...

[johnnygothisgun]

Christ, only a handful of the many, many boomer subs the US has got all around the world would have enough munitions to turn the planet into a big, molten ball.

I'm horrified that people take comfort in this fact. How can you boast about something like that? Are you even thinking about what you're saying?

You're right, sorry, I'm the bad guy! After all, in the end, it's not about who's right and who's wrong, but about who takes the moral high ground.


Oh, wait.

[Spazmo]

Everyone having the ability to kill everyone else at the push of a button and the whole Cold War prevented a catastrophic Hot War that we would have had instead between the Soviets and NATO. We don't need nuclear weapons to devastate the entire world--see Dresden. It just takes a lot more effort without them. But with them, everyone is afraid to go to war directly with their enemies, whereas I don't think there would have been so much hesitation to go to war in Europe again if there wasn't the threat of nuclear annihiliation looming.

[CrazyNick]

lets see here. After, i don't know 400 nukes (of of a probable 4,000) in the world go off. Thats enough to destroy every major city and military base in the world. The atomic fallout from a nuke all depends on the wind. On a windy day nuclear fallout can reach hundreds of kilometers away. That mean that every major city, plus a buch of the minor ones surronding them are gonna be toast. And the nuclear winter, its like the faster than light theory. It's probably true but there's no safe way of finding out. It's just common sense. The dust created by the fallout would deffinately cover a large area. Multiply that area by 400 and sreap it out over the world a boom. No sunlight

[Kashluk]

Ranger is a rare case in DAC, because he doesn't seem to bullshit at all. Congrats, you freak
---------------
And now, what comes to Sweden and WW2... You can't really win a war that you didn't participate in, now can you? Sure Sweden survived through that time without any losses, but that's like saying that the ultimate victor of the Vietnam war was West-Germany. And AFAIK Sweden didn't really advance in by any means in any department during that time either, now did it? Swedes only managed to maintain their ages old life style. While comparing to countries on the Axis side, like Germany, Japan and Finland, they felt an industrial boom post-ww2, partly because they were tired of watching their cities in ruins and partly because such high war reparations were demanded from the Allied/Soviet side. Finland was an agricultural asshole before ww2, far far behind Sweden in most ways. After the war we were forced to build ourselves industry in response to the soviet reparations, because they weren't happy with just lumber and goat milk and such - they wanted war ships, trains, factory machines etc. So stuff had to be built from the scratch in fear of Soviet attack and slowly we climbed to the same level as the Western Europe, including Sweden.

Location: Dog Cocks Trench, Finland

[CrazyNick]

I bow out gracefuly and admit my mistake on hating the Swedes

[St. Toxic]

You can't really win a war that you didn't participate in, now can you?

When its a world war, it affects quite a number of countries, wether they send soldiers or sit around the house and touch themselves. Think of it as a storm at sea. Surelly the ship that rides it out less harmed than the others is the 'victorious' ship?

Sweden didn't really advance in by any means in any department during that time either

It isn't exactly chess, where casualties are back at the table for another round, once one side has been deemed victorious. It takes alot of time to regain normality, and one country that has retained normality ( especially in the industrious and economic fields ) is usually the country that tops the war weary ones for years to come.

A neutral, non fighting party is in most cases: not worth a goddamn nickle. Either it's a country dry on resources, unorganized and low on productivity, or just to damn small to be worth a damn; likely all three. In this case, it can hardly be said that allowing sweden neutrality was a strategic choice, as the swedish army was quite small, and the country richly industrious. Nevertheless, it remained neutral and that made it a leading economical and technical power for a number of years = this considered ( by me ) a victory.

Thats the fun part of winning a war, you actually have to win something, this shown by the low morality of defending soldiers. Its hardly the tactics alone, that stand behind victory, when reclaiming or taking territory or resources, it's the actual concept; I'm taking something.

I'll never consider "Kill all the bad guys" as a victory, never. They'd have to drop some fat loot or make you level up or something. Fine, so you get medals for it, I guess that's worth something to certain people.

Still, a lone gunman killing a large number of civilians, is hardly ever talked about as a victorious battle, and why shouldn't it be, if casualty set the standards? He conquered the square! Rid it of men and women! He didn't win much doh, only a trip to the crazy-farm and his picture in the papers. Worth about as much as medal, if you ask me.

[King of Creation]

In order to win a war, one must either completely destroy the opposing state or the opposing state bows down to your power. It's just the converse of what I said before about losing a war. You can't win a war if you remain neutral in it. There's no victory in neutrality.

[Blargh]

The only 'victory' war can offer is through abstinence. Anything less or more is failure.

[St. Toxic]

In order to win a war, one must either completely destroy the opposing state or the opposing state bows down to your power.

There's no victory in neutrality.

I don't agree with this shortsighted reasoning.

[Ranger]

Aren't we talking about the Swiss here, and not the swedes? Either way, if we're talking about the swiss, then part of the reason no one bothered them is because their country is surrounded by mountains. No real easy way to pass a large army through. And I'm not sure about WW2 but now at least, while their standing army is small, every citizen is a member of their reserves. Everyone over the age of 18? is required to have an issued assault rifle in thier home, and qualify on it at least once a year. But I tend to think of the swiss as monsters. They knew what was going on around them and they did nothing. Think what effect a previously un-thought about enemy attacking from a section of border you thought to be secure would have? Think about ditching your damaged bomber in switzerland to try to ride out the war, and when you land finding out that suddenly they're the bad guys? The swiss have been thought of as "The nice germans" for too long now.

[King of Creation]

I don't agree with this shortsighted reasoning.

I'm talking in terms of a war. You may, as a neutral party, end up doing well because of the way the war played out, but you are not the "victorious" party. You're just the party that benefited from the victories of others.

[Redeye]

Aren't we talking about the Swiss here, and not the swedes? Either way, if we're talking about the swiss, then part of the reason no one bothered them is because their country is surrounded by mountains. No real easy way to pass a large army through. And I'm not sure about WW2 but now at least, while their standing army is small, every citizen is a member of their reserves. Everyone over the age of 18? is required to have an issued assault rifle in thier home, and qualify on it at least once a year. But I tend to think of the swiss as monsters. They knew what was going on around them and they did nothing. Think what effect a previously un-thought about enemy attacking from a section of border you thought to be secure would have? Think about ditching your damaged bomber in switzerland to try to ride out the war, and when you land finding out that suddenly they're the bad guys? The swiss have been thought of as "The nice germans" for too long now.

Nazi gold, loot warehouses, etc.
They profited bloodlessly.
Is that a victory of sorts?

[St. Toxic]

You may, as a neutral party, end up doing well because of the way the war played out, but you are not the "victorious" party. You're just the party that benefited from the victories of others.

Excuse me; ...the party that benefited from the losses of others...

And, well, that's what I call victorious. Zero loss, massive gain = victory.

Nazi gold, loot warehouses, etc.
They profited bloodlessly.
Is that a victory of sorts?

Sure is.

[Ranger]

Hey found this site on the web and thought it may prove interesting
http://www.wilderness-survival.net/hazards-1.php
Most of this info comes straight from the Army Survival Manual