>be the US >have a military and an arsenal of nukes capable

>>135606938
because you are a bunch of cucks

>>135606938
>refuse to use them to defend yourself
do you see an invasion of a foreign military anywhere?

>inb4 "muh degenerates"

killing instead of utilizing is why the huns died out.
it's why the persian armies are no longer around.

it's why the switch flip from peace to war is so intense with america.

>>135606938
What is mutually assured destruction?

>>135606938
>be Russia
>have a military and an arsenal of nukes capable of annihilate every one of your enemies without even much effort
>refuse to use them to defend yourself and slowly die from the inside out

why /pol/? why is reality like this?

>>135607312
a bad situation we got ourselves into from not acting first back in the 40s < - this is literal historical fact

>>135606938
>>135607416
Because nukes can't melt steel Muslim beams.

Because radioactive rays can't melt minorities or gays

>>135607532
what about steel jewish beams?

>>135607624
>tfw no gay bomb

And by gay bomb I mean a device that when deployed only vaporizes fags

>>135606938
Could Russia respond fast enough if the US were to fire all its nukes at one time without prior notification?

>>135607809
It's called AIDS

>>135607458
Like all opportunity, we ignore them when the time is right, only to have an 800lb gorilla breathing down our neck when it's too late. We should have nuked Beijing and Moscow right after the war,

>>135606938
We are not them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_DFKb9g-Tk

>>135607791
They are too cheap to do anything themselves but it makes people want to assist because they are so useless.

>>135606938

>advocates nuclear holocaust

Its called mutually assured destruction for a reason dumbass. Just 100 nukes detonated at the same time would create enough radioactive fallout to blanket the entire earth. Jesus fucking christ.

>>135606938
>be France
>have a military and an arsenal of nukes capable of annihilate every one of your enemies without even much effort
>refuse to use them to defend yourself and slowly die from the inside out

why /pol/? why is reality like this?

>>135608433
I think something snapped in the French and British when they became allies.

>>135607458
Yeah. And now we're now.

>>135607312
that hasn't existed since the 1960s.

>>135608206
100 nukes will not "blanket the earth".

>>135606938
Are you suggesting a Nuclear strike on Jew York, LA and Gay Francisco ?

>>135608955
We actually aren't exactly sure what 100 nukes would do. Keep in mind after the nuke the entire city burns. So 100 cities all on fire.

>>135609250
you're an idiot and you have no clue what you're talking about.

1. we know damn well what 100 nukes would do, we've tested way more nukes than that.

2. no, the "entire city" will not "burn". do not assume that all cities will have the construction quality of 1940s japan.

3. you have no idea what would be targeted, and how.

>>135607187
Hitting the overran border towns would have halted the invasion from the south.

>>135608206
Hysterical faggot.

So much as a paper airplane from china, best korea, or russia hits the U.S. Shits gonna hit the fan

>>135606938
With Jews you lose.

>>135608955
You're using the term MAD wrong.

Mutually Assured Destruction means if we bomb someone with a nuke, it may start a chain of nuclear counter-attacks. Even if we attack a non-nuclear country with such a weapon like say, Iran, their biggest ally Russia may start lobbing them in retaliation. This back and forth conflict would be The End, but would go on for months afterwards due to submarines, who have orders to act, even in the even of global annihilation.

>>135609513
>no, the "entire city" will not "burn". do not assume that all cities will have the construction quality of 1940s japan.


>Implying modern nukes arent 100 times more powerful than 1940s fat man nukes.

besides, it doesnt fucking matter about how good infrsructure of a city is. you drip two modern powerful nukes on any city and it doesnt matter if skeleton steel structures are still standing, the entire city is obliterated.

So actually, i must say aussie, you are the idiot who has no clue what you're on about.

lol failtard

>>135608206
mutually assured destruction just means both sides have basically the same amount of nuclear weapons and if one used them, the other would in kind and thus ensure mutually assured destruction of both sides. It has nothing to do with the amount of nukes launched or fallout blanketing the earth, It's a fucking deterrent.

>>135610152
he basically said that, dickhead. He said if you nuke everyone, there would be 100 thrown back and forth and the whole world would be obliterated.
Learn reading comprehension.

>>135610024
>Mutually Assured Destruction means if we bomb someone with a nuke, it may start a chain of nuclear counter-attacks.
again, that went out of style in the 1960s. nuclear doctrine is almost universally tailored towards counter strikes intended to end the nuclear war as soon as possible. the change to this style of warfare was justified because of the serious prospect of a nuclear war in that era resulting in the complete annihilation of the USSR and the US.

>Even if we attack a non-nuclear country with such a weapon like say, Iran, their biggest ally Russia may start lobbing them in retaliation.
what on earth would Russia have to gain? either they can allow "us" (i use this term to mean the west in general, not Australia or America specifically) to flatten Iran for whatever reason (which is unlikely to begin with, we toppled Iraq twice with no issues, there aren't many scenarios that would warrant a nuclear strike) and then respond in a calculated manner, or they can start lobbing nukes and get obliterated. what does Russia have to gain by striking the US?

>This back and forth conflict would be The End
no it wouldn't, since there is an almost 100% chance that the exchange would stop immediately after either nation became incapable of coordinating nuclear strikes.

>>135610076
reading comprehension, mate. you're bringing in the concept of a city being completely obliterated (which is flawed, but i can't be fucked to explain why), he's talking about the nuclear winter meme.

>>135610372
that's not how it works.

>>135610499
I was only using Iran as an example. I'm too busying eating pecan pie to go into semantics. You caught my drift.

>>135610499
even if a city had the infrastructure to withstand huge nuclear devestation, multiple mushroom cloud bombs going off in the city, then the radiation alone would make the city uninhabitable for centuries. Chernobyl would look like a spilt milk in comparison.

File: 084.png (298KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 600x512px

>>135611296
>then the radiation alone would make the city uninhabitable for centuries
an airburst wouldn't spread enough radiation to be of note, and a ground burst (depending on the bomb) could be tolerable within two weeks to a few months.

>>135606938
>who are Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

>>135611473
Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for 20,000 years! sure nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs work in very different ways, but a few weeks until safe to go back into the city? You first, buddy XD

>>135606938

>these are nukes

>>135611781
do you not know how radioactivity works? the most dangerous elements are the ones that decay first. nukes aren't particularly dirty compared to power plants.

>>135607416
Because only a retard would actually nuke someone. Land is worthless for decades after nuclear anything. What would be the point when they can financially bankrupt you with sanctions and influence destabilize and destroy your country from the inside out.

>>135606938
sigh. Because, for the dummies, even if you DO defeat "every one of your enemies", you will STILL slowly die from the inside.

>>135607312

you must be at least 18 years old to post on 4chan

your dad would kick your ass if he saw that nazi larp flag, too, faggot