I know that the odds of a nuclear war between world powers is

File: 1476932613674.png (555KB, 1315x890px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 1315x890px

>>31738386

>>31738386
Usage of nukes would mean a complete loss of credibility. You may win the battle and inflict a large and bloody wound, but you've got to keep using nukes in order to "win". As a terrorist weapon, it's possible. A legitimate rebellion (replace the government in DC) would result in major morale and recruiting issues.

>>31738386
>I know that the odds of a nuclear war between world powers is pretty low, but what are the odds of nuclear strikes being used by either side in the event of a civil war?
No.

>What is the chance, if any that the American government would use nukes as a last resort if rebels were storming Washington?

Low

>Could American rebels capture or use a nuke of their own?
Possible with a B61 or B83.
Not possible with Strategic weapons.

>Even with defectors would they have the ability to launch it?
No

>>31738425
I don't necessarily know how badly nuking DC would affect rebel morale. If the rebels are angry enough at the federal government to be literally up in arms, I doubt most of them would have qualms about destroying the center of American politics. Most Americans have a lot of distrust for a lot of the shit that goes on inside the beltway, once the sides have been declared and the war is on, they'd probably consider anyone who is still in DC a pest who needs to be exterminated. The only people they would claim would still be there are corrupt career politicians, lobbyists, and military brass who have sided with the government. I'm sure it would kill the Rebels international credibility, especially if they try to establish a central government after and don't just break off into independent states, but I doubt the Russians or Chinese would care enough to withdraw support.

>>31738419

That was retarded and I feel dumber for reading it.

I didn't even read all of it, I skipped a few paragraphs.

>>31738419
It never gets old. It's always prefaced as a left-wing government trying to take control, with the fucking tea-baggers and military as a united front against them.

Not only is it more likely to be started by a bunch of fucking retards trying to live out the Turner Diaries, but it's going to be more like Syria where it's a free-for-all of a 1,000 different factions. Most of them bad.

File: 1476933683348.png (137KB, 768x652px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 768x652px

>>31738425
>>31738386
I think the answer really depends on how the rebels organize themselves. If they can manage to separate their differences and come together under one political leader with the backing of some legitimate state and municipal governments, then I could see the war being controlled enough for neither side to drop a nuke for fear of losing credibility with the international community while inflaming support for the opposing side. However if the rebels don't manage to get their shit together and end up like the situation in Syria with 50 different groups and no top leadership(something like pic related), then the odds of a nuclear detonation by the rebels would me immensely higher because the the massive amount of different actors involved making it easier for terrorists to establish themselves. Personally I think an American civil war would end up like the Spanish Civil war. A bunch of Generals and politicians claiming that they don't support the current government, and then people chaotically choosing sides, with uneasy political alliances on both sides threatening to break off every now and then.

>>31738574
>not understanding how wars work
Yes the entire service and logistics industries are going to grind to a halt because of the fucking war. Plenty of people will flee, but plenty of other people won't for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with undying loyalty to the regime.

>>31738700
>It's always prefaced as a left-wing government trying to take control, with the fucking tea-baggers and military as a united front against them.
>Not only is it more likely to be started by a bunch of fucking retards trying to live out the Turner Diaries, but it's going to be more like Syria where it's a free-for-all of a 1,000 different factions. Most of them bad.
The amount of white nationalist retards in this country is not nearly enough to start a revolution. While it probably won't be a completely united front, the US does not have close to the amount of religious tension, division, and fanaticism to be anywhere close to the situation in Syria. Any American revolution would be by and large political, and most likely involve major corruption like voter fraud uncovered in an election year during an economic recession or depression. There would probably be a decent amount of independent and fanatics, but by and large the rebels would probably be divided into 2 or 3 major factions with uneasy ceasefires or alliances between them. It would be semi-decentralized but not nearly on the level of syria.

>>31738700
>>31738602
>Marksmen hitting the power grid
I played that one level in Ghost Recon advanced Warfighter too

>>31738842
>Marksmen hitting the power grid
What is he even saying here? That you can fire some rounds into a transformer and shut down the American power grid? I get that power would probably be vulnerable during a civil war and that there would be constant battling over rebels trying to knock down power lines and government trying to fix it, but it seems more likely they're just knock down the lines with explosives than shoot at it with rifles. How would that even work?

>>31738419
Whoever wrote this has about the same level of intellect as the OP.

>>31738913
I think so, basically he's fantasizing a word where the Gov becomes super left wing and starts purging the undesirables (ie right wing conservatives), which coincidentally is the very thing they would like to do to people THEY consider undesirables (left wing, liberals). All of this adds to his boner of getting to operating during a happening

>>31738463
HI Oppenheimer

How reliable are nuclear strike maps? Are those simply targets, or the missiles anticipated to make it through defense systems?

>>31738419
why does it say "ID:4411c0"

>>31739117
>thinking the US gives a fuck about protecting its people via defense systems

If only we still had Oppenheimer