Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ive hear if any country launched a nuke ant any country, countries that are not even involved would retaliate.

What would happen if USA launched A Nuke?

2. Can he shoot down nukes/ what are the chances of a nuke succefully getting here from across the world?

My God...do you use Google Translate between three different languages when you make your posts?

What do you mean?

He means your grammar and sentence structuring sucks balls.

So? Who cares about good grammer? Especially on the net.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
So? Who cares about good grammer? Especially on the net.

Even 4chan has better spelling and grammar than you do on average.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
So? Who cares about good grammer? Especially on the net.
Good grammar and spelling are essential to communication; the fact that so few people understand this is cause for depression.

I can forgive a few mistakes (because everyone makes them, including me) here and there, after all a forum post isn't a dissertation, but when it becomes difficult to even read someone's sentences it stops being forgivable and turns into an actual problem.

yea u sed @

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Ive hear if any country launched a nuke ant any country, countries that are not even involved would retaliate.

What would happen if USA launched A Nuke?

2. Can he shoot down nukes/ what are the chances of a nuke succefully getting here from across the world? "He"? Do you mean...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wfhaD0iQwV4/Tp9o4j3T-_I/AAAAAAAAADU/Q2C2kfyzTdI/s1600/Chronicle%2BMovie.jpg

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
What would happen if USA launched A Nuke?

It depends heavily on which country is targeted. At the least, without any war, considering any random country, such as if one was just accidentally launched at one of the EU countries, the US would be practically transformed into a pariah state that would make North Korea like a cultural breadbasket in comparison. I wouldn't be surprised if the National Command Authority were indicted on international crimes against humanity and executed.

That being stated if it's aimed at any nuclear armed country, Nuclear holocaust is imminent.

If it's aimed at any Arab country (i.e Iran or Pakistan), a very long and costly war (which the US can't win) is imminent with the US being despised by the international community, and thus receiving no support.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
2. Can the targeted country shoot down nukes/ what are the chances of a nuke succefully getting here from across the world?

Again, depends on the country. I'm positive Russia and China could shoot down the nukes. I'm pretty sure the UK, France, Germany, and Italy could as well, but those probably aren't the countries you are referring to

Why cant us win a war against iran or pakistan? We are The Superpower in military

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Why cant us win a war against iran or pakistan? We are The Superpower in military

Military technology doesn't mean shit if every citizen in the opposing land is against you. Imagine the Viet Cong, but on a far more massive scale. There would be absolutely no distinction between civilian and combatant. Remember, we nuked them. Not only will they hate us, but it will also be confirming the Iranian government's decades-long rhetoric that the US is out to get them. They would have every reason to oppose us and none to support us.

Originally posted by Lestov16


If it's aimed at any Arab country (i.e Iran or Pakistan), a very long and costly war (which the US can't win) is imminent with the US being despised by the international community, and thus receiving no support.

Neither Iran nor Pakistan are Arab countries.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Neither Iran nor Pakistan are Arab countries.

To me, everyone with Brown skin is "Julio" or "Achmed"

Eef US laucnh nukees form wessel on brown skin cuntory of ran or Irak. They may will gets made and bumb from rushka orrrr meksikan on us many bombings. Sad will be with many bleedings from hed.

Oh, Sory, gramar not important coumiktation kleer for. I want say Nukular weasil lunch mistle from.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Why cant us win a war against iran or pakistan? We are The Superpower in military

You'll win the war, but not the peace.

Originally posted by Utrigita
You'll win the war, but not the peace.

The only way to cull the angry citizens would be a literal genocide (that is if they don't consider the nuking an act of genocide already), and once that happens, any even slightly good reputation the US had would be FUBARed

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Oh, Sory, gramar not important coumiktation kleer for. I want say Nukular weasil lunch mistle from.

Seriously? Yes, CBC doesn't have the best grammar, but is it really that distracting?

Originally posted by Mindship
"He"? Do you mean...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wfhaD0iQwV4/Tp9o4j3T-_I/AAAAAAAAADU/Q2C2kfyzTdI/s1600/Chronicle%2BMovie.jpg lol

Would countries like russia or iraq, seize the chance to nuke us back if we nuked another country?

What would happen if Tsar Bomba was dropped on Manhatten At Full Strength (100 Mega Tons), or if it was dropped on iraq

What if you stopped asking 'What Ifs'?

you make the worst threads ever bro

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Would countries like russia or iraq, seize the chance to nuke us back if we nuked another country?

They wouldn't nuke us back, as that would lead to imminent Mutally assured destruction. They would however provide massive support for the nuked country's armed forces as they retaliated


Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
What would happen if Tsar Bomba was dropped on Manhatten At Full Strength (100 Mega Tons),

the entirety of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island would be decimated. The EMP would render the horrified survivors near-completely helpless, and the radiation would probably infect drinking water both in the States and overseas

Iraq has MAD with America?

Lestov, do you have sources to support your predictions?

I was obviously referring to Russia, ass

Originally posted by Lestov16
I was obviously referring to Russia, ass
Classy.

And what makes you think that Russia would automatically support any country that America would nuke?

IDK. I'm not an expert on the subject. Since you seem so knowledgeable, why don't you offer some advice? I'm just trying to answer the thread question since everybody else is being uptight about CBC's grammar/ If you can answer it better than me, then please, by all means, go ahead. This isn't a competition or a debate. It's simply a discussion about a scenario

Originally posted by Lestov16
IDK. I'm not an expert on the subject. Since you seem so knowledgeable, why don't you offer some advice? I'm just trying to answer the thread question since everybody else is being uptight about CBC's grammar/ If you can answer it better than me, then please, by all means, go ahead. This isn't a competition or a debate. It's simply a discussion about a scenario
I'm not making assertions because I'm not an authority on geopolitics or nuclear fission.

It's not being "uptight" to expect that an adult can write an intelligible sentence that doesn't require lots of guesswork and a charitable reading.

lol you guys really are focusing more on his grammar than the thread topic. Whatever


Anyways, I may not be an expert, but I'll at least try to answer the thread.......after this episode of The Walking Dead is over

Originally posted by Lestov16
lol you guys really are focusing more on his grammar than the thread topic. Whatever


Anyways, I may not be an expert, but I'll at least try to answer the thread.......after this episode of The Walking Dead is over
Not so much grammar as general readability.

His grammar wasn't that bad. You could comprehend what he was trying to say.

Originally posted by Lestov16
His grammar wasn't that bad. You could comprehend what he was trying to say. This along with the fact that most of it is Typos, I dont really proof read before I post something.

Albert Einstein Had Bad Grammer. *Fact

Originally posted by Lestov16
His grammar wasn't that bad. You could comprehend what he was trying to say.
Did you not read my last post? His grammar isn't the worst part of his posts, even if he fixed his grammar his spelling and general sentence construction are atrocious.

I shouldn't have to actually put effort into understanding what he types.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
This along with the fact that most of it is Typos, I dont really proof read before I post something.

Albert Einstein Had Bad Grammer. *Fact
You're not Albert Einstein. And there a hundred "Albert Einstein couldn't/was bad at X" stories that people use to excuse deficiency in any number of areas.

And as others have said before, putting "*Fact" after a claim doesn't make it true.

Shut your gay Florida mouth Omega. Colossus makes quality threads.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Albert Einstein Had Bad Grammer. *Fact

Einstein was, in fact, an incredible writer

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Shut your gay Florida mouth Omega. Colossus makes quality threads.
He'll think you're being sincere.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

You're not Albert Einstein. . You saying it doesnt make that facf

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
You saying it doesnt make that facf
Are you just repeating things now without understanding them?

It is a fact that you're not Albert Einstein.

this reminds me of what they said on Metal Gear Solid

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Albert Einstein Had Bad Grammer. *Fact

Einstein's writing skills were good enough that he wrote an explanation of special relativity so clear that is still one of the standard introductions to the concept.

In other words, shit?

Einstein also knew enough about geopolitics to be asked to be the first president of Israel.
The results would be very bad for America, but what kind of nuke are we talking about? Conventional, thermonuke, or fusion nuke (hypothetical), antimatter (also very hypothetical and very very destructive and expensive), or neutron? What kind of yield. The difference would be damage, environmental impact, blast radius,

Fusion nukes aren't hypothetical, thermonuclear weapons get most of their explosive power from fusion (the thermonuclear part is short for "thermonuclear fusion".

And, yes, I just felt like correcting you without adding anything of actual value to the conversation.

you gotta input the PAL code...room temperature,then Hot and then finally Cold in that order

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fusion nukes aren't hypothetical, thermonuclear weapons get most of their explosive power from fusion (the thermonuclear part is short for "thermonuclear fusion".

And, yes, I just felt like correcting you without adding anything of actual value to the conversation.

I meant pure fusion, no fission involved. The mechanism I've heard of involves super heating lithium and deuterium in the warhead with a system of lasers. It's why the US is more interested in researching less efficient laser fusion for power rather than the Tokamac and is only symbolically supporting Project ITER.

Antimatter weapons are totally out of the question because unless the military has invented some secret penning or carbon trap, it's unfeasible. Even then, unless the military has perfected some secret simple way to harvest the stuff, such as from thunderstorms, one bomb would probably cost 2.5 times the GDP of every country on Earth combined.
Besides, is the US so insecure about penis size that they would want to fire what would literally be a photon torpedo at a Muslim nation?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I meant pure fusion, no fission involved. The mechanism I've heard of involves super heating lithium and deuterium in the warhead with a system of lasers. It's why the US is more interested in researching less efficient laser fusion for power rather than the Tokamac and is only symbolically supporting Project ITER.

I wouldn't call that any less pure. In one system you get energy from lasers and in the other you use a nuclear explosion.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Antimatter weapons are totally out of the question because unless the military has invented some secret penning or carbon trap, it's unfeasible. Even then, unless the military has perfected some secret simple way to harvest the stuff, such as from thunderstorms, one bomb would probably cost 2.5 times the GDP of every country on Earth combined.

Once you have a perfected method for storing antimatter building huge bombs stops being worth while even more than it is today. Antimatter carpet bombing would be terrifying but probably not as much as antimatter sabotage.

Thunderstorms are a terrible place to collect antimatter since there's a lot of matter going around that will annihilate it immediately. There's also very little antimatter to get there, there are about 500 gamma ray flashes worldwide, per day, not all of which are antimatter in thunderstorms. Even if you have a perfect system for predicting the flashes you have to get your equipment in place in the middle of the thunderstorm and turn the traps on with millisecond timing. The sheer logistical and administrative difficulties would probably stop such a plan before it even began anyway.

The other option, I suppose, is catching the antimatter with something in orbit but the positioning and timing parts are probably even more difficult in that case.

Anyone who wanted a supply of antimatter would build a bunch of colliders and engineer them specifically to collect antimatter. As far as I know no one has ever tried building a collider for that exact purpose, so there's no telling how much efficiency you might gain, but I think its the most realistic option.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Classy.

And what makes you think that Russia would automatically support any country that America would nuke?

If I was to give a answer I would say that pretty much every single country in the world would condemm the actions of the US and offer aid to the Country that was hit, in one form or another.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I wouldn't call that any less pure. In one system you get energy from lasers and in the other you use a nuclear explosion.

I would. A noticeable percentage of the destructive work produced from the explosion comes from the fission reactions used for creating the enormous temperatures needed for fusion reactions.

Plus conventional thermonuclear weapons produce enormous amounts of radioactive fallout(which poisons the targeted land for long time-spans ranging several decades), a drawback which a hypothetical pure fusion weapon doesn't share.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Ive hear if any country launched a nuke ant any country, countries that are not even involved would retaliate.

What would happen if USA launched A Nuke?

2. Can he shoot down nukes/ what are the chances of a nuke succefully getting here from across the world?
While this scenario of yours sounds completely implausible, if the US does end up launching a nuke(and repeating history), it'll depend on the location of the country involved and the geopolitics of the current time-period.

Most nations will publicly condemn such an action, but few if any will try to retaliate. Among all the known Nuclear Powers, only China and Russia have confirmed ICBM capability approaching the US' own, thereby making only them capable of posing a serious threat to the US in a global nuclear exchange. The only reason that they would even bother to retaliate is if said victim of the US was near their borders and the resulting nuclear fallout affected some strategic locations or populated areas as an unfortunate collateral damage. If any of these two do retaliate, it won't be long before the third is forced to join in, MAD becomes inevitable and the End World prophecies finally get fulfilled.

The entire idea is cuckoos anyway because even a regional scale nuclear exchange(like the one which nearly happened at the culmination of the Kargil War between India and Pakistan) is capable of causing severe damage to the global ecosystem for at least a decade or so, and the fatalities could at the very least equal/rival the sum total loss of lives during World War 2.

Originally posted by Utrigita
If I was to give a answer I would say that pretty much every single country in the world would condemm the actions of the US and offer aid to the Country that was hit, in one form or another.
The thing is that there was no context given. The entire scenario is unrealistic because I can't envision the USA ever using a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear power (which would retaliate to the best of its ability) given the USA's conventional military power. And even if you step past that, the question doesn't give an idea of why nuclear weapons were used. My point is that it's uselessly hypothetical, unless we're to say that in this scenario the USA is some mindless raging monster nation without a shred of moral decency or strategic self-interest, and if this is the case then it could apply to any nation on Earth possessing the nuclear capability and mutated to the same level of cartoonish supervillainy.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
any nation on Earth possessing the nuclear capability and mutated to the same level of cartoonish supervillainy.
Tbh, with the exception of Russia, no nation even begins to approach the level of nuclear might that America possesses currently. In terms of the sheer quantity alone, the United States' nuclear arsenal is probably 10-20 times bigger than the nuclear arsenals of all other nuclear powers(Russia excluded) combined. The delivery systems for these nukes are also top-notch and cover a global range.

Any arbitrary nuclear state(like Pakistan or North Korea) going into the "mutated cartoonish supervillainy" and the US going into the same frenzy would produce similar effects but vastly different in scale.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Tbh, with the exception of Russia, no nation even begins to approach the level of nuclear might that America possesses currently. In terms of the sheer quantity alone, the United States' nuclear arsenal is probably 10-20 times bigger than the nuclear arsenals of all other nuclear powers(Russia excluded) combined. The delivery systems for these nukes are also top-notch and cover a global range.

Any arbitrary nuclear state(like Pakistan or North Korea) going into the "mutated cartoonish supervillainy" and the US going into the same frenzy would produce similar effects but vastly different in scale.
I was saying that if you're going to--to use a metaphor--write the USA out of character for the sake of a hypothetical then you may as well substitute any nuclear power for the USA because there was no specification regarding the scale of the weapon(s) used.

Actually, come to think of it, this may not be correct. Regardless of intent or other circumstances leading to the use of the nuke, a country like North Korea is bound to face a more immediate and withering international response than the USA would.

Every country in the world can talk a big game until they think that the USA is a bloodthirsty dog of a country with a massive nuclear arsenal and an itchy trigger finger. Any kind of opposition to America in this scenario would be subterranean or muted.

But again, I have nothing to base any of this on.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I was saying that if you're going to--to use a metaphor--write the USA out of character for the sake of a hypothetical then you may as well substitute any nuclear power for the USA because there was no specification regarding the scale of the weapon(s) used.

Actually, come to think of it, this may not be correct. Regardless of intent or other circumstances leading to the use of the nuke, a country like North Korea is bound to face a more immediate and withering international response than the USA would.

Every country in the world can talk a big game until they think that the USA is a bloodthirsty dog of a country with a massive nuclear arsenal and an itchy trigger finger. Any kind of opposition to America in this scenario would be subterranean or muted.
I understand what you were saying in your response to Utrigia, but the point of my post(which focused on the comparison between the US being in this "bloodlust" mode and another nuclear state being as well) was the fact that how vastly different the scale of the "rampage" and its effects on the world would be once things escalated.

Agree with you on the points about North Korea and the other stuff.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But again, I have nothing to base any of this on.
But it is more or less true. Which country apart from Russia(which imo would be too apathetic to respond anyways unless it saw its own interests being sabotaged) do you think would dare to go beyond a mere verbal admonishment of America's actions?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The thing is that there was no context given. The entire scenario is unrealistic because I can't envision the USA ever using a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear power (which would retaliate to the best of its ability) given the USA's conventional military power. And even if you step past that, the question doesn't give an idea of why nuclear weapons were used. My point is that it's uselessly hypothetical, unless we're to say that in this scenario the USA is some mindless raging monster nation without a shred of moral decency or strategic self-interest, and if this is the case then it could apply to any nation on Earth possessing the nuclear capability and mutated to the same level of cartoonish supervillainy.

I was merely giving a answer on behalf of Lestov using my own thoughts on the subject. I agree the scenario with US launching a Nuke, and forgetting about it until it impacts is just as far of the scale as North Korea invading the US.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I would. A noticeable percentage of the destructive work produced from the explosion comes from the fission reactions used for creating the enormous temperatures needed for fusion reactions.

"Noticeable" as in "known beforehand" not "comprising a very large portion of the ultimate explosion". In a laser activated bomb there would also be a known, but much lower, contribution to the explosion from the enormously powerful lasers involved.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Plus conventional thermonuclear weapons produce enormous amounts of radioactive fallout(which poisons the targeted land for long time-spans ranging several decades), a drawback which a hypothetical pure fusion weapon doesn't share.

That doesn't make them not fusion bombs. They're bombs powered by fusion. The priming device happens to cause a bunch of radiation.

It's like saying that Trinity wasn't really nuclear bomb because it was set off by conventional explosives.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Noticeable" as in "known beforehand" not "comprising a very large portion of the ultimate explosion". In a laser activated bomb there would also be a known, but much lower, contribution to the explosion from the enormously powerful lasers involved.

All that is true but not quite relevant in this case. It appears you're confused with my stance here. The usage of the term "pure fusion weapon" is more of a semantics game in this case, not just limited to whether a particular device based on its capability to produce a fusion reaction should be called as such or not. Which is why I took issue with the idea that a fission-triggered H-Bomb should be referred as a "pure fusion" bomb or not in the first place.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

That doesn't make them not fusion bombs. They're bombs powered by fusion. The priming device happens to cause a bunch of radiation.

Who said anything about them being "not" fusion bombs? They aren't considered pure fusion weapons though because they aren't. The term "pure fusion weapon" is used to denote a (hypothetical) device which doesn't rely on a fission primary to ignite the fusion fuel.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

It's like saying that Trinity wasn't really nuclear bomb because it was set off by conventional explosives.
Again, this doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of whether or not conventional thermonuclear weapons are ""pure fusion" bombs or not.

Beyond the distinction between maybe ICBM/plane/Sub-launched and dirty/truck/small-warhead, do you guys really think the distinctions between the possible weapons, such as thermonuclear or "pure fusion", are going to change the global reaction in a serious way?

I get there may be differences in fallout/etc, but the geopolitics should be identical, at least in any immediate/short term.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Beyond the distinction between maybe ICBM/plane/Sub-launched and dirty/truck/small-warhead, do you guys really think the distinctions between the possible weapons, such as thermonuclear or "pure fusion", are going to change the global reaction in a serious way?

I get there may be differences in fallout/etc, but the geopolitics should be identical, at least in any immediate/short term.
Anything with nuclear in front of it is instant war crimes trial fodder.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Beyond the distinction between maybe ICBM/plane/Sub-launched and dirty/truck/small-warhead, do you guys really think the distinctions between the possible weapons, such as thermonuclear or "pure fusion", are going to change the global reaction in a serious way?

I get there may be differences in fallout/etc, but the geopolitics should be identical, at least in any immediate/short term.
No, I don't make such a presumption.

Agreed. It doesn't matter what type of WMD is being used here, as the reaction will more or less remain the same. Mere lip service in all likelihood.

if US fired a nuke...at least we attacked first

If that happens, maybe big war is not far away.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anyone who wanted a supply of antimatter would build a bunch of colliders and engineer them specifically to collect antimatter. As far as I know no one has ever tried building a collider for that exact purpose, so there's no telling how much efficiency you might gain, but I think its the most realistic option.
CERN developed the Anti-Proton Decelerator for exactly that purpose and as of 2010, their facilities(which are probably most advanced in this particular field in the world) have estimated that it would take somewhere around a hundred billion years to create just one gram of antihydrogen alone.

Chronologically speaking, we're lightyears away from building machines that can harvest/generate even modest quantities of antimatter.

uhhh...so Hydrogen bomb is still most powerful nuke?

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
CERN developed the Anti-Proton Decelerator for exactly that purpose and as of 2010, their facilities(which are probably most advanced in this particular field in the world) have estimated that it would take somewhere around a hundred billion years to create just one gram of antihydrogen alone.

Did not know that, neat.

The 100 billion years per gram figure also seems to be the super optimistic version, assuming there are no losses. Multiple colliders working in parallel is an important part of any such production facility, though.

You don't have to be all factual. You could take the Angels and Demons route to an anti-matter bomb

Antihydrogen sure is a bargain at $6.25 quadrillion per kg to produce.

Us produce a nuke? are you asking KMC to manufacture nukes?

You didn't know KMC manufactures nukes? Where have you been?

KMC nukes! for sale?? Awesome, how much.. how much??