Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Shadowman wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

MightyMagnus78 wrote:If Nuke's get used, then both countries lose. Otherwise the US win (easily).

Not necessarily. The US is much larger in area and population, a nuke would have much more devastating effects on the UK in terms of killing its population and destroying land.

Well, sure, as far as population density and actual landmass goes we'd fare better after a nuclear attack. But if an actual nuclear exchange were to occur between any nuclear-capable superpowers, population density and landmass don't factor into it.

When it comes to survival, it would, but it depends on the circumstances. Say both countries shoot 1 nuke at each other, logically aiming at the capitals. If London gets hit, the resulting explosion would destroy the city and the fallout would most likely have devastating effects in a huge radius. If Washington gets hit, we can probably say goodbye to the entire Eastern seaboard, but the West Coast wouldn't suffer that much, at least not right away. They'd have enough time to get somewhat prepared. I understand that nuclear fallout has effects on the world no matter where nukes are used, but a lot depends on proximity.

Rodimus Prime wrote:When it comes to survival, it would, but it depends on the circumstances. Say both countries shoot 1 nuke at each other, logically aiming at the capitals. If London gets hit, the resulting explosion would destroy the city and the fallout would most likely have devastating effects in a huge radius. If Washington gets hit, we can probably say goodbye to the entire Eastern seaboard, but the West Coast wouldn't suffer that much, at least not right away. They'd have enough time to get somewhat prepared. I understand that nuclear fallout has effects on the world no matter where nukes are used, but a lot depends on proximity.

Okay, first off, nuclear weapons aren't that powerful, otherwise the atomic tests at Los Alamos, as well as the bombings of Japan, as well as any nuclear tests performed by other nuclear-capable nations, would have resulted in the destruction of Earth. A single nuclear weapon isn't going to obliterate the Eastern seaboard. A city? Yes. Half a country? No.

Second, no one launches just one nuke. And even if both sides launched a single nuclear weapon at each other, it would, at best, end in a stale mate. Worst case, it pisses off both sides enough for another salvo, and that many nuclear weapons going off at once actually would be a problem.

wow, scary stuff We in the UK would get dicked on. The SAS are feckin' awesome, and we do have some very handy specialists, but there are not enough of 'em to do much. Can't we just stay friends?

Shadowman wrote:Okay, first off, nuclear weapons aren't that powerful, otherwise the atomic tests at Los Alamos, as well as the bombings of Japan, as well as any nuclear tests performed by other nuclear-capable nations, would have resulted in the destruction of Earth. A single nuclear weapon isn't going to obliterate the Eastern seaboard. A city? Yes. Half a country? No.

Duh. I wasn't talking about obliteration, but the fallout will destroy life far outside of just the blast radius. Carried by wind and Water in the Atlantic, there will be devastating effects on plant an animal life, and that will cause drastic losses in human population. Perhaps I should have worded my post a little more detailed.

Second, no one launches just one nuke. And even if both sides launched a single nuclear weapon at each other, it would, at best, end in a stale mate.

I agree with more than 1 nuke being launched, but if there was only 1 launched, it would still have greater effects on the UK, because of its smaller territory and less population. It would cripple its economy much worse, thus not only hampering, but perhaps devastating any recovery effort. In the US, recovery efforts would be more effective due to larger population and more resources. Thus, it would not be a stalemate, even if they decided to not fire any more at each other. The aftereffects would play out differently.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Okay, first off, nuclear weapons aren't that powerful, otherwise the atomic tests at Los Alamos, as well as the bombings of Japan, as well as any nuclear tests performed by other nuclear-capable nations, would have resulted in the destruction of Earth. A single nuclear weapon isn't going to obliterate the Eastern seaboard. A city? Yes. Half a country? No.

Duh. I wasn't talking about obliteration, but the fallout will destroy life far outside of just the blast radius. Carried by wind and Water in the Atlantic, there will be devastating effects on plant an animal life, and that will cause drastic losses in human population. Perhaps I should have worded my post a little more detailed.

Again, we have evidence that proves a single nuclear weapon and it's fallout wouldn't be country-destroying bad. We detonated two in Japan, remember? Japan is both substantially smaller than the US, and a bit larger than the UK. And they're still standing.

Shadowman wrote:Again, we have evidence that proves a single nuclear weapon and it's fallout wouldn't be country-destroying bad. We detonated two in Japan, remember? Japan is both substantially smaller than the US, and a bit larger than the UK. And they're still standing.

Good point. And I thought Japan was smaller than the UK. Landmass wise, anyway. I know there are a shitload of people. One thing about that, though, and this is just my opinion, the nukes we have now are much more powerful than the 1st 2 atom bombs that were dropped, aren't they? It's not like the American nuke arsenal is rocking 1945 technology. Or at least I hope not...

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Again, we have evidence that proves a single nuclear weapon and it's fallout wouldn't be country-destroying bad. We detonated two in Japan, remember? Japan is both substantially smaller than the US, and a bit larger than the UK. And they're still standing.

Good point. And I thought Japan was smaller than the UK. Landmass wise, anyway. I know there are a shitload of people. One thing about that, though, and this is just my opinion, the nukes we have now are much more powerful than the 1st 2 atom bombs that were dropped, aren't they? It's not like the American nuke arsenal is rocking 1945 technology. Or at least I hope not...

A modern hydrogen bomb could devastate an area ten times as large as Fat Man and Little Boy. But that's still only a a forty mile radius, which is a lot of land, but, again, not a nation-destroying weapon.

Shadowman wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Again, we have evidence that proves a single nuclear weapon and it's fallout wouldn't be country-destroying bad. We detonated two in Japan, remember? Japan is both substantially smaller than the US, and a bit larger than the UK. And they're still standing.

Good point. And I thought Japan was smaller than the UK. Landmass wise, anyway. I know there are a shitload of people. One thing about that, though, and this is just my opinion, the nukes we have now are much more powerful than the 1st 2 atom bombs that were dropped, aren't they? It's not like the American nuke arsenal is rocking 1945 technology. Or at least I hope not...

A modern hydrogen bomb could devastate an area ten times as large as Fat Man and Little Boy. But that's still only a a forty mile radius, which is a lot of land, but, again, not a nation-destroying weapon.

It is if you're Luxemburg...

But seriously, I don't think the impact itself would have a devastating effect nationwide, but the radiation would definitely affect a much larger area. All I'm saying is, when it comes to the effects, a nation with a smaller area will be affected much worse when it comes to survival and recovery.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Again, we have evidence that proves a single nuclear weapon and it's fallout wouldn't be country-destroying bad. We detonated two in Japan, remember? Japan is both substantially smaller than the US, and a bit larger than the UK. And they're still standing.

Good point. And I thought Japan was smaller than the UK. Landmass wise, anyway. I know there are a shitload of people. One thing about that, though, and this is just my opinion, the nukes we have now are much more powerful than the 1st 2 atom bombs that were dropped, aren't they? It's not like the American nuke arsenal is rocking 1945 technology. Or at least I hope not...

A modern hydrogen bomb could devastate an area ten times as large as Fat Man and Little Boy. But that's still only a a forty mile radius, which is a lot of land, but, again, not a nation-destroying weapon.

It is if you're Luxemburg...

But seriously, I don't think the impact itself would have a devastating effect nationwide, but the radiation would definitely affect a much larger area. All I'm saying is, when it comes to the effects, a nation with a smaller area will be affected much worse when it comes to survival and recovery.

The nuclear fallout wouldn't just effect the UK but also parts of Europe as well, causing a massive refugee problem.

In essence an attack on the UK would also mean an attack on Europe, increasing the possibility of a European retaliatory response.

if its a drinking match then both Scotland and Ireland win. ( yeah ah ken Ireland urny in the UK.)
any way every one loves the Scots.
http://www.fife.50megs.com/img/Ginger%20Nuts.jpg

UK has approximately 200 warheads. US has thousands. Therefore, US wins. However, US loses many cities and other important places, esp. army bases. UK is wiped off map (virtually everyone dead). Northern Europe made highly radioactive. Entire Northern Hemisphere becomes radioactive from fallout and has years of 'nuclear winter'. Chaos, famine, wars for resources, healthcare systems collapse, enormous movements of refugees, farming disrupted, crop failures, epidemic of cancer and radiation sickness, pandemics of infectious diseases... Basically the new Dark Ages. US wins but the nation is crippled for many years to come. (Most US citizens dead.) Loses global dominance. Possible invasion by China, if the risk to China is small.