We will always be remembered as cowards because the last total

>>77461184
>he actually believes that the current """peace""" is permanent

>>77461379
>he actually believes a nuclear war is ever possible

>>77461412
It's definitely possible, and we've had some incredibly close calls. Hell, technically it's already happened (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

>>77461184
I'm pretty sure only burgers think of you like that, we just think you smell bad and are drunkards

>>77461412
>he actually believes the next war will be full out nuclear

>>77461450
We don't really think they're cowards, it's just a joke. We do think they're gay though.

>>77461447
thats not a nuclear war, a nuclear war is nuclear weapons from both sides

File: distances-of-major-cities-from-cuba.jpg (3MB, 4278x2973px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4278x2973px

>>77461412
It's only ever countries that have never been close to having it happen, that say this

>>77461459
>he actually believes anyone will go to war without its nukes

File: 1495751968971.jpg (408KB, 600x624px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 600x624px

>>77461184
That's not true, we'll never forgive that guy

>>77461602
>Vietnam?
>Korea?
>Syria?
>Iraq?

>>77461184
I just see it as another reason for the french to not be allowed to rule themself

>>77461412
>he believes something that has already happened is impossible

>>77461602
Are you slightly retarded?

>>77461184
eh, we too, even thought we basically conquered the world single handedly.

who cares btw

>>77461706
>WE

File: IMG_1209.jpg (61KB, 540x672px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 540x672px

>>77461706
a man once said that italians were extremely good at everything else but war. it's as if your people evolved from being conquerers to being the conquered. so strange. i guess people do change.

>>77461184
you need to start WW3 to get rid of the bad name

>>77461602
> what is India vs Pakistan

>>77461706
>the world

The Continental U.S. is composed of more land than the Roman Empire at it's height.
Not to mention all of our military bases around the globe.
But muh Rome is stronk

>>77461450
The ultimate proof we're gauls

>>77462360
can you imagine if pakis or indians start nuking eachother?
can you imagine the """""""refugee"""""" wave?

>>77461501
You think we're gay?

A bit rich coming from you

>>77461412

Very, very possible. Lots will die but some will live.

>>77461450

Crazy, because the same could be said for Italians

>>77462360
>>77462428
they don't have any active nuclear warheads

just some sitting around, but it'd take at least a few months to get to active use.

>>77462501
*sharts in the drive-through liquor store*

>>77461627
Proxy wars aren't real wars

>>77461627
Vietnam had no nukes
N. Korea and S. Korea had no nukes during the Korean war
Assad and IS have no nukes
Iraq had no nukes
What a totally retarded comparison, there were no countries with nukes fighting for their survival here, the guys with nukes were sitting on the other side of the world playing chess.

Even the India-Pakistan conflicts are just border skirmishes and no total wars where one country invades the other, if any of them were ever close to taking over the other the regime whose survival was threatened would use its nukes before going out.

If Saddam had had nukes when he was invaded and the capital was about to fall he would have used nukes.

If North Korea had had nukes when the US/S. Korea invaded it during the Korean war they would have used them.

Just as America would use nukes if a foreign power was ever successfully invading it and about to take over the country.

>>77462843
There were moments of open-warfare between USSR and USA during both Korea and Vietnam

>>77461184
Your performance in Vietnam wasn't anything to write home about either

>>77462888
Neither the survival of the USSR or the USA were ever threatened by the other since it was a fight about proxy countries.
If the USSR ever invaded the US or the US invaded the USSR with full force nukes would be used.

That is the whole point, limited fights between a couple soldier in a third country obviously don't start a fucking nuclear war but if the countries and regimes actually being invaded had had nukes they would have used them.

So a total war in the sense of WW1/WW2 with nuclear powers on both sides actually is impossible without a nuclear war happening.

>>77462843
India-Pakistan is by far the most likely to occur imo, because of how short the distances involved are. With the US and Russia, there's enough time to determine if a launch is real or a false alarm (about 5 minutes). With India and Pakistan it's more like 20 seconds.

>>77461459
>>77461502
>>77461523
What a bunch of alarmists. The closest you can ever get to a real military use of nuclear weapons is terrorists smuggling radioactive materials to detonate a dirty bomb from Pakistan.

A nuclear war is no win situation for every party involved and non-involved. Get back to your comps and play Fallout again.

>>77463048
A lot of people thought the same thing about chemical weapons before WWII started, and yet none of the European countries went all out with their chemical weapons. Germany had plenty of sarin gas, and the UK had anthrax so dangerous it would have made most of Germany uninhabitable for decades. Neither country used those weapons.

>>77463151
Japan was the only country to use chemical weapons in warfare during WW2

Those subhumans.

>>77463099
>A nuclear war is no win situation for every party involved and non-involved.

Not necessarily. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, some members of the EXCOMM wanted to just go nuclear because the US would "only" lose a few cities and one or two European allies while the USSR would be permanently destroyed. That's a win right there.

>>77463181
Well, we did nuke them later on after roasting hundreds of thousands of them alive with incendiary bombs...bit difficult to claim the moral high ground when it comes to dangerous weapons.

>>77462501
we're among the lowest alcohol consumers in all europe

but hey, whatever you want to think, I don't care

>>77463151
So essentially you're saying that if Hitler had nukes he would not have used them even though he tried his best to destroy London with bombers and V2 rockets and so on.
Even though he knew that he and the whole Nazi leadership would be killed and Germany would be occupied and cut into pieces and humiliated by defeat he would not have nuked Moscow and London and Washington because it would have seemed inhumane to him.

Or Stalin would not have nuked Berlin if he could when the Germans army was closing in on Moscow.
Or Churchill would not have nuked German cities even though he gladly bombed them to the ground with basically the same casualties a nuke would have caused.

That's fucking dumb.

>>77461184
sounds far better than Japan people are busy demonizing.

>>77463401
>So essentially you're saying that if Hitler had nukes he would not have used them even though he tried his best to destroy London with bombers and V2 rockets and so on.

No, I'm saying we have a real life example of two countries with WMDs choosing not to use them during "total war". Hitler never put sarin gas in his rockets.

>Even though he knew that he and the whole Nazi leadership would be killed and Germany would be occupied and cut into pieces and humiliated by defeat he would not have nuked Moscow and London and Washington because it would have seemed inhumane to him.

Even when he knew the war was lost he didn't resort to chemical weapons. Really makes you think.

>>77461523
>amerisharts put missiles in turkey
tee hee I ddn't know this would bother u soviets :^)
>soviets put missiles in cuba
SHUT IT DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

File: 1443661908252.jpg (45KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x600px

>>77461523
>tfw chilangos didn't die in a nuclear strike in retaliation from hiding Trotsky.

>>77463978
The problem wasn't really the missiles in Turkey, it was a more general problem that the Soviets had been struggling with for more than a decade at that point: The US could easily hit the USSR, but the USSR couldn't do the same. The Jupiter missiles were kind of the straw that broke the camel's back.