World War III

[N-Dubz]

I wouldn't say it would be the end of the world, but there would sure be alot of damage. The weapon's countries have nowdays are unbeliveable and alot of people would die but not everyone.

I'm sure there will be a world war soon, its highly predicted.

Espically now we have countries run by total nutcase's and idiot's.

[Viruz]

sum1 uses nukes everbody loses:rolleyes:

[PaintYourTarget]

sum1 uses nukes everbody loses:rolleyes:

If we look at the statistics of Past Nuclear Weapon usage, that statement is 100% false. Statistically, only Japan loses when Nuke's are used.

And, would the end of the world as we know it really be a bad thing? 9/11 taught us that mass destruction brings nations together. Perhaps losing a few cities to a nuke would unite this nation against a common enemy and put an end to all the violence we're inflicting on ourselves?

[cocaine]

If we look at the statistics of Past Nuclear Weapon usage, that statement is 100% false. Statistically, only Japan loses when Nuke's are used.

And, would the end of the world as we know it really be a bad thing? 9/11 taught us that mass destruction brings nations together. Perhaps losing a few cities to a nuke would unite this nation against a common enemy and put an end to all the violence we're inflicting on ourselves?

i think its quite sad that we have to lose actual lives in order to see the descruction we cause to ourselves.

[Viruz]

but when the atom bombs used in world war II were like 13 kilotons and the trident missles the United Kingdom have are 100 kilotons i think its bad news:rolleyes:

[PaintYourTarget]

i think its quite sad that we have to lose actual lives in order to see the descruction we cause to ourselves.

Something to think about though, eh?

And what makes that different Viruz? The fact that one missile can cause more destruction is enough to deter other nations from responding or from using.
There's been a lot of interest in Tactical Nukes, smaller than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki ones, to use in the battlefield to eliminate vast quantities of enemy troops and footholds. In fact, there's rumour that one of these were used in Iraq, and I'll find you the videos. But that is still nuclear war, just without world apocolypse.

Iraq Nuke video, skip to 3:50.

[Ontario]

but when the atom bombs used in world war II were like 13 kilotons and the trident missles the United Kingdom have are 100 kilotons i think its bad news:rolleyes:

haha hes right

[Virgin Mary]

You can't honestly think that governments care about who they use nukes on.

[Leetzgirl]

Something to think about though, eh?

And what makes that different Viruz? The fact that one missile can cause more destruction is enough to deter other nations from responding or from using.
There's been a lot of interest in Tactical Nukes, smaller than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki ones, to use in the battlefield to eliminate vast quantities of enemy troops and footholds. In fact, there's rumour that one of these were used in Iraq, and I'll find you the videos. But that is still nuclear war, just without world apocolypse.

Iraq Nuke video, skip to 3:50.

You do not call that a nuke in that youtube vid. :rolleyes:

[PaintYourTarget]

You do not call that a nuke in that youtube vid. :rolleyes:

Tactical, not WMD, dear. Didn't you read any of what I said?

I'm going to give up arguing on these threads. There's seriously little to no point as we will never get an answer and it's just wasted effort.