Nice Davy Crocket Nuke.

Yeah I felt like using the image for....no reason. Kind of the same reason why the Crockett was made

Makes sense to me. Such a funny little weapon; a nuclear device with a smaller effective radius than many conventional munitions.

Which exactly why it's a horrible creation - it'd be conventionalizing nuclear arms; good thing it was scrapped. If we all started firing nukes at each other just because of the smaller radiation the fallout would blanket the entire planet.

because of the smaller radius; radiation*

I agree with you, but I feel that it was created more for the intimidation factor. The Soviets would be less prone to a ground war knowing that we had nuclear weapons that could be mobilized with infantry to be implemented to swing the tide of a battle.

Would make sense that it's used as a deterrent. We need Peace Walker as the ultimate deterrent though - just not in the control of a maniac (I'm assuming you've played Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker anyway)

Actually I haven't, but I'd settle for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative; "Star Wars". If you have space lasers, what else do you need?

Isn't that what the SPARTAN II satellite for?

I'm not familiar with the Spartan II, I really only know about the Milstars as far as tactical satellites are concerned. But Strategic Defense Initiative was a non-ballistic solution that works like our developing missile shield, using space based lasers.

That's the SPARTAN II

Ah, very cool. As cool as it is though, it seems far more practical to use ground based interceptors in conjunction with a large scale CIWS.

Well I'm far from an expert in these matters but the people behind the SPARTAN II are so I'm not going to question it. Just so long as no missles fly then I'm a happy camper.

I hear that man, but being impervious to attacks from ICBM's gives us an inherent offensive capability. It's all about that Offense-Defense balance, if you're invulnerable to nuclear attack, then you're effectively the only one with then ability to use high yield weapons. We go over this extensively in my International Security classes.

Yeah well I'm only 17 and I only do the sciences. How about you bring up "What to do if a nuclear IRBM, because of it's smaller size, is fired from a railgun? It'd use no propellant as so wouldn't be able to be intercepted and it's simply too small to hit." - should make for an interesting discussion

I'll have to save that one for when I go back next semester; a weapon which cannot be intercepted certainly changes things, but the question still remains, should anyone be able to intercept everything? If we were completely impervious to long range attack, nuclear or otherwise, would the rest of the world behave more violently in response? Those are the sort of questions we look at. If you're into this stuff, I strongly recommend some poli-sci courses when you get to college, they're a total blast.

Well I am at college but I'm english so we work on different systems and to be honest I actually couldn't care less about politics - all it really is is bitter old men forcing their ideology on the younger generation with only a short amount of regard to how they feel. In their defence how can they? They cant exactly go around and ask everyone their opinion.

As for an answer to your question, not if the rival country has an overwhelming military force and if the leaders of countries can give a **** about the lives of their countrymen. If they do not then they shouldn't be given any power. Intercepting everything is a good idea - if they find a way to sneak past a defense then they'll repeatedly exploit it, if they run up against an iron wall time and time again they'll give up.

I completely understand, the only politics that really interest me have to do with defense.

I was good friends with an exchange student from Coventry who shared a similar view as you, and for the UK it makes perfect sense. The United States is just so globally connected that you need to consider the ramifications of nuclear invulnerability. Fear is a double edged sword, it may dissuade another country of attacking, but it may also prevent peaceful trade, or even trigger an arms race.

Then again, as a ROTC Cadet, I think defense should be our primary concern, so to be honest, I tend to flip-flop on the issue.

Medicine is my schtick so I'm doing that

The reason why there's a lot of hatred for the United States is because of all the poor decisions the US made, the amount of propaganda in other countries and all the fiasco surrounding the Cold War and the hell of Central America from the late 60s to early 90s. America needs to pour its funding less into actually attacking and simply the ability to be ready to launch an attack. Switzerland has shown how neutrality can benefit.

If you have an iron defense you don't really need anything else - a country's concern should lie solely on it's own citizens.

Haha, it won't let me make any more replies in our current string, but I think we're using different terms to describe the same thing. The United States should assume a non-provocative stance. like you said, a gentle giant.

It's been good talking to you, have a good one man.

Yeah it makes more sense to retain your power rather than abuse it.

You too - it's been fun

Oh trust me, I know. The way that we handled Guatemala, Cuba, and even Panama was questionable at best, and then you've got Vietnam marking our most costly misstep. But it was a heated time, our leaders felt that it was advantageous to go on the offensive to ensure military and economic supremacy. The desired result was achieved, but at the cost of our global image.

We're living in a new age, and I personally feel that the United States needs to adopt a more global perspective. I don't believe that isolationism is the answer, but a less aggressive stance should be adopted to help maintain our global network and lessen the fear that makes our enemies so dangerous.

The ends don't really justify the means - America would have become a serious power even without all the invasions; maybe even stronger than it is today.

I think it'd be better to adopt a 'Gentle Giant' state - harmless and kind but if provoked you're ****** . Gives a MUCH more positive image and the world's ideal would side with a county that adopts that state - no-one's going to blame someone for defending themselves

Are you sure you're not talking about the main character Arnold?

mabye. do they ware the same clothes, hairstyle and glasses?

The one in the post is Arnold's cousin. This sums it up www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4606441/Magic+School+Bus/78#78

oh, sorry. lol

I'm just glad I grew up with dodgeball...they are missing out on so many life lessons.

Logged in because I liked my comment