Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
Shadowman wrote:In the centuries since we last fought, the United States has become powerful, angry, and let's face it, downright insane. There's also the fact that the US has a substantially larger army. If the US and UK went to war today, assuming neither had support from any other country, the Queen would be waving Old Glory by the end of the month.
MightyMagnus78 wrote:If Nuke's get used, then both countries lose. Otherwise the US win (easily).
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
Shadowman wrote: If the US and UK went to war today, assuming neither had support from any other country, the Queen would be waving Old Glory by the end of the month.
MightyMagnus78 wrote:If Nuke's get used, then both countries lose. Otherwise the US win (easily).
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.
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
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.
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.
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
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.
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.
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.
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
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.
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...
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
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.
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.
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Bumblevivisector, Dino-Snarl, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Ponyformer