.....and exactly who wants to " invade "the USA ??? they would be tomahawked to death before breakfast ! it is simply not possible to invade ! its full of...." Americans " anyway !
And isnt there an SSBN or 3 still parked just off Certain Coastlines ??? Besides all this, the Chinese have found the correct method. Buy the joint . They even have a receipt ...lolmao.
BECOUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE MEN IN POWER TO DO IT AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE LADY GAGA SO STORE GUNS N FOOD UP FOR SHIT TIMES TO COME DONT TAKE ANY FLU SHOTS OR WOODEN NICKLES RED LIST SHIT DEATH SAME BLUE N YELLOW NO FEMA CAMPS FOR ME AND I WOULD PRESS THE BUTTON BUT THEN IM NOT LADY GAGA. GHOST! PS LOOK UP ALEX JONES.PEACE!
This is so idiotic....if there would be fullscale nuclear war between US and Russia, there wouldnt be any winners....every1 would loose....we all know that both Russia and US have enough nukes to blow eachother back to stone age and the world would suffer from massive fallout and nuclear winter....
As for terrorists, they dont represent any one nation...terrorists have cells all over the world, thus if terrorsit would attack with nukes, you cant strike back at them with nukes...
on china we should tax every thing comming into the usa ever contry does that but we dont y its sick they bring in trash billions and we dont tax come on they ship 10 cars to the usa to our 2 tax tax tax them let put a hold on them while we still can
If either one country fires nukes to blow the other, the other threatens to blow the whole world...that's why no one uses any nukes any more. But if terrorists got nukes, they will fire it whatever you say, this is very scary...
can anyone remind me which is THE ONLY COUNTRY which have ever used a nuclear bomb (in fact were dropped 2 of them) and used it against CIVILIAN population????
@zulle83 I'm not losing any sleep over nuking the japs. Estimates at the time were that hundreds of thousands of lives both american and japs civilian/military would have lost their lives if we hadn't cut the war short. Far more than what 2 atomic bombs did. WW2 was considered a Total War...no holds barred...for a reason. If the krauts or japs would have gotten a hold of nukes they would have done the same to the allies. The bombing of london and jap/german cities were aimed at civilians as well
@damiion666 You're 100% right, the Japs wouldn't have surrendered that easy without those bombs (maybe it would have been enough just showing the effects of the bomb to the Japs without erazing 2 cities???) and the bombings of London were against civilians (but they were much more similar to conventional weapons). I just don't like when History books are written only according to the winners' tales... e.g. I don't know how many people know that the USA had their racial laws until the '60s...
@zulle83 Umm its cool to play monday morning quarterback by saying maybe we should have shown the effects on the japs before we bombed them? You do realize we showed them the effects on hiroshima and gave them 3 days to respond. They refused so we used the second nuke. I think they got the point. So what if the bombings of london, berlin, dresden, tokyo were only conventional? It was just as bad since more people died in these bombings than with the 2 atomic bombs. History books are accurate.
@damiion666 or if they know who sold lots of weapons to Afghan Talibans and Saddam in the 80s. or if they know anything about Operation Paperclip, which carried many guilty nazis (including von Braun) to the U.S.A., or if they know that CIA tested the effects of LSD on unconscious french civilians in the 50s... U.S.A. does not mean freedom for anyone. they just had enough luck to win WWII and the cold war. nowadays it means bombing for oil and carrying economic crysis towards civilized world.
@zulle83 What is your point about the US selling weapons to afghans and saddam in the 80's? The enemy back then was the soviet union. You do realize that alliances change? For example germany used to be our enemy and so was italy. Today we are part of the same alliance. LOL @ "the cia tested lsd". At least we didn';t murder 6 million jews or 5 million chinese like your favorite axis powers did. At least we can change our attitudes ourselves without having a world war change it for us.
@damiion666 the point is how going around the world stiring pots of s*it selling weapons and threatening the world 20 years later telling that they are terrorists. right, germany and italy were enemies of U.S.A, but after the war the U.S.A. planted usaf bases in those country to "keep the freedom"... no jews killed in the U.S.A., but millions of native americans, american japanese people kept in camps during WWII (and used as guinea pigs for experiments, such as jews in nazi germany)... LOL.
@zulle83 Your point about selling weapons makes no sense. If I lend my gun to my neighbor 20 years ago to defend himself against someone and then he turns around and uses that gun against me how is that my fault? Unless one is psychic no one can predict which ally will turn into an enemy in the future and vice versa.
As far as planting bases guess what....u lost a world war get over it. British, french, and Americans are going to keep bases in those countries for a long time deal with it.
@damiion666 a nation which spends over 20 billion dollars just for air conditioning its soldiers in afghanistan, invests only in war and drags all the world deeper and deeper into the economic crysis (thanks to many american jewish surnames...) doesn't have anything to teach anyone. I think that now Saddam was not convenient anymore because he wanted payments in Euros and not in $ anymore. in 1991 the great Norman Schwarzkopf understood the aim of modern american wars and quickly redired...
@zulle83 But now I see where you're coming from..."thanks to many american jewish surnames..." your bigotry is exposed. This is what we come to expect from a former axis powers what do u expect? Your credibility is thrown out the window. Don't worry where we spend our money on that is none of your concern. If we want to give air conditioning to our troops and give weapons to current allies that's our business too bad for you.
@damiion666 in the end I can just say that the owning of an atomic bomb for a country is just a way not to get bombed by the U.S.A. (except MAYBE the crazy North Korea). it's not a weapon to be used, it's just an insurance policy.
@zulle83 And your conclusion of just because a country used an atomic bomb against an aggressor nation during ww2 therefore it means they will use it again does not make sense. In case u haven't noticed no nukes have ever been used since ww2 it's called M.A.D....Mutually Assured Destruction. If it wasn't for responsible nations having nuclear capabilities we probably would have had one or two more world wars by this time. Fortunately peace thru strength proved worthwhile.
@damiion666 i'm not saying that. i'm saying that THE ONLY ONE COUNTRY which used it can't be the judge in deciding who has the right to own it or doesn't. a country which randomly attack others (with pathetic theories such as links between Al Qaeda and Saddam) can't neither be defined "responsible". Medias are criminalizing Iran because of Sakineh and didn't spend a word about Teresa Lewis. It's clear they want to persuade people about the right to attack Iran. Nobel prize to Obama was a fraud..
@zulle83 Sure it can. In a total war there are no holds barred. Since ww2 the US has never used nukes upon a non aggressor. This shows our restraint. Just the same there are only a certain amount of nations on a permanent security seat in the UN for a reason. Sorry but your opinion of "your country which randomly attack others with pathetic theories such as links between al qaeda..." don't worry about who we attack. It's our towers that were attacked not yours. Therefore we'll bring the fight.
@damiion666 Germany had lost two World Wars, after WWII had 2 millions german refugees from other countries, had been divided, had been reunified with an underdeveloped east and is still the european locomotive. a country having over 300,000,000 people falls in a ten years lasting crysis because of 2000 dead and few buildings destroyed? maybe something has gone wrong somewhere...
@zulle83 You ever heard of the Martial Plan? After WW2 we pumped the european economies with money and aid for 4 years straight to help them on their. Also the Berlin Airlift where we literally saved berlin from starvation when the Soviets blockaded the city. Shortly after this incident NATO was formed to counter any Soviet threat. Yes I am proud of my nation helping with Germany's success story so what's your point? Don't worry about how we protect our citizens that's our perogative.
@damiion666 if you mean the marshall plan i agree (even if the most was given to UK and france and those money didn't repay germany for the cost of a lost war. it was just a way to help for a new beginning -and to buy fidelity-). germany finished to pay war debts for WWI only in 2010 and is still paying for WWII. until the 50s american policy was policy. after that it became just speculation and interests. i don't mind how do you protect your citizens if you protect them at their own home
@zulle83 No not just the Marshll Plan but also the Berlin Airlift when the soviets were trying to starve the city into submission in 1948. We responded by flying in supplies for a full year until the soviets gave up. Every nation does things for their own interests this is not new. Frankly I don't care if u mind or not how we protect our citizens. We do what we do we don't ask for permission or advice on how to do it thanx.
@zulle83 "i don't mind how do you protect your citizens if you protect them at their own home"...we will protect our citizens by any means possible even if it means go on the offensive as we did with the japs and nazi germany. We don't need foreigners telling us how to protect ourselves. To answer your question you would have to be more specific on which wars you're talking about. There have been a number of them.
@zulle83 Sorry I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Let me guess...I bet you also believe the cia coordinated all the planes and used demolitions in 9/11/01.
@damiion666 no, but i don't believe that Satanized Bin Laden can be the only one guilty.
MKULTRA is not "conspiracy" and it outcame only 25 years after it begun... think about it.
Lybia is finally free... I hope You know which were the rights of a lybian citizen in Gaddafi's regime... is it freedom or usual starving what is going to be there?
go on believing in official versions of everithing and live in the fear of a foreign danger... meanwhile your country goes on selling your future to China
@zulle83 While I do agree people lie and do shit secretly, I don't believe in the bigger overall conspiracy theories. The bigger the secret, the harder it is for people to keep their mouths shut.
"Lybia is finally free"...yea, i don't give a shit either way about libya. Yea it's cool we helped get rid of kadafi, but we shoulda done it a long time ago. Don't really care about the rebels tho. Libya was to protect france's oil supply.
@zulle83 "meanwhile your country goes on selling your future to China" Let me share the dirty little secret. China will never get paid back. If they try to collect, they commit economic suicide. It's called a symbiotic relationship. Basic economics 101. America has the natural resources, 2 oceans as borders, and the people willing to do the right thing to survive anything that might come our way. After all, we survived the Great Depression.
@damiion666 Zaire has diamonds, but people is starving...
in 1996 (yes, 1996!!!) Gaddafi issued an international arrest warrant triugh INTERPOL against Bin Laden in connection with the murder in March 1994 of two German anti-terrorism agents.
Five months after, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
what were the USA doing meanwhile?
I hope you have read yesterday's Mustafa Abdel Jalil's speaking...
@zulle83 Dude..wtf is ur point? Just spit it out! Me personally, I wouldn't even have gotten involved with the whole libya fiasco. Not in our interest either way.
@damiion666 the point is: 1- having natural resources doesn't mean you'll be a rich country in the future.
2- i know lybia was more a french affair, but USA had the "leadership from behind" (not my words). the whole strategy of the war against terrorism is failing. in fact it's just destabilizing countries killing regimes, making possible for al qaeda to infiltrate in those countries and giving the political power to the only well organized party in the whole arab world: Muslim Brotherhood.
@zulle83 I would rather have al qaeda infiltrate a government and have it run said nation than to have it as an underground insurgency. Having them out in the open and holding governments accountable would be easier to target and annihilate and hold accountable.
@zulle83 As for having natural resources, it makes a big difference on a nation's ability to rebound quickly. Look at russia and how it rose out of the ashes of the USSR. It had vast reserves of oil it could rely on. U cant compare zaire to the U.S. We have more than just one natural resource, and won't tolerate such regimes and American citizens, nevermind the military, are armed to the teeth to allow any dictator or foreign power to just walk in and take what they want.
@damiion666 can you tell me how that is true when the usa spends more than all the contrys put together lol are armed to the teeth can you show me ## i would like to see real ## than i will show you what the usa## are look you guys are going to become a team with the usa in the future look at chine and iran that is what you should b looking at dont trush them never
@damiion666 facts United States 698,105,000,000 4.7% 2 People's Republic of China 114,000,000,000 2.2% 3 France 61,285,000,000 2.5% 4 United Kingdom 57,424,000,000 2.7% 5 Russia 52,586,000,000 4.3% 6 Japan 51,420,000,000 1.0% 7 Germany 46,848,000,000 1.4% 8 Saudi Arabia 39,200,000,000 11.2% 9 Italy 38,303,000,000 1.8% 10 India 36,030,000,000 1.8% 11 Brazil 27,120,000,000 1.6% 12 Australia 26,900,000,000 1.9% 13 South Korea 26,550,000,00
@sertox12345 Nothing wrong with spending money on defense budget. What's ur point? During WW2 we also produced the most material, we were known as the arsenal of democracy. If it were up to me we'd spend MORE money to modernize our nuclear arsenal.
On china, yes I agree we should tariff all their imports because they refuse to raise the value of their currency. I believe in FAIR trade, not FREE trade for china.
The U.S.A. itself and its policy are biggest dangers for the U.S.A..
For those who says "Pakistan", which already owns the nuclear bomb, I remind them that the U.S.A., such as other "western" countries, are selling planes, technology and military equipment to that country...
Actually, Russia and China are two countries that pose nuclear threats for the United States, at least theoretically. But theoretically can very rapidly change into practically. Nothing is always certain. Anyway, Russia and China also have such strategic bombers, Russia even has a larger fleet with more capable bombers. They also have more powerful ICBMs, so I would say that US is under nuclear threat from at least two countries.
@damiion666 Yeah, peace through strength. That's exactly what those pathetic anti-military liberals don't understand. It's annoying how they use the argument that the US doesn't have an enemy to sabotage the US' weapons development.
As for these bombers, from what I know, the USAF is still using them. Aren't they still using them?
@damiion666 Yes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have diverted a lot of funds from actual weapons development and weapons procurement. Money is spent on some other places. The Iraq war should've never been started. These wars have actually decreased America's capabilities to defend itself but in the same time, the defense budget has increased. I really don't know where 700 billion dollars are going. And on what.
@StiviGun1 I take a libertarian view of actually closing off some of our bases around the world just to regroup and consolidate our forces place them where they need to be. It's funny that these same people that bitch about the US having bases in their countries all sudden cry when we even mention the possibility of pulling out. Look at south korea. I'd be all for leaving them in charge of defending their borders but their govt wouldn't want us doing that.
@damiion666 The truth is US does have a lot of bases around the world, many of them just cost a lot of money without offering anything in return. So yeah, closing off some military bases abroad would be just one solution of getting more funds where they need to be. Another one would be to simply end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and put the money spent on these wars where they need to be: on actual development and procurement of new weapons systems.
@StiviGun1 for making what, for bullying Canada? sorry, but american bases around the world doesn't give anything tho the countries where they're located in (except for UFOs sightings and pollution). the day that U.S.A. will spend in education, welfare state and industrial development an half of the money they're spending in wars and weapons they are going to feel a free and safe country.
@zulle83 When did the US bully Canada... WTF are you talking about?
And before you make some statements about something, you should go make some research. The US REALLY IS spending in education, welfare and other areas MUCH more than they spend on defense. Their defense budget is about 5% of their total GDP which is 14 trillion. So that's just a very small percentage. But the US has A LOT of enemies and it must invest in its defense if it wants to survive as a nation.
@StiviGun1 if you didn't understand I made a stupid example to say that investing in new weapons for the already best armed and equipped country in the world would be totally useless. I could say "for bullying Martians"... the U.S.A. have the NEED of an enemy to attack, even invisible enemies, so periodically starts propaganda and then attacks. they can't live without a war, that's their drug. take care of U.S.A. economy and national debt instead of amusing people with foreign troubles.
@zulle83 Well, the US is not at all the best armed and equipped country in the world. This is just a pathetic excuse pathetic anti-military/anti-American losers use to convince the US politicians to not invest in their country's defense. People have always been jealous when America showed its military strength and I always found such people PATHETIC.
As for the rest of what you said, only pathetic conspiracy theories that have already been proven to be false.
@StiviGun1 if you are talking about Switzerland I don't think they have enough people to attack anyone. YOU are pathetic. USA think theirselves as the beloved liberators and savers, but in fact they're the most hatred country in the world. think about it and keep your "toys" for yourselves. you didn't have a war in your country since 1865, so why do you carry your beloved war all over the world? you could destroy the world AT LEAST 20 TIMES with your weapons... whatever do you need more???
@zulle83 I;m not talking about Switzerland, I'm talking about Russia and China who develop a lot of weapons against the US. This is a fact and it doesn't matter what pathetic American haters like you think or want.
America can destroy the world 20 times... Well, this is actually an exaggeration, but yes, the US has the potential to destroy the world and so does Russia. But I'm talking about conventional weapons. This is where America starts to be left behind and this is very dangerous for US.
@StiviGun1 how many people in U.S.A. own a passport and travelled outside the country? soldiers and families don't count, because in the usaf bases aroud the world american people live, buy, study, entertain theirselves INSIDE THE BASES with no idea of the external world. americans should start travelling abroad (an not only for the post-college or post-whatever trip) and start looking to the world through their own eyes, not only through tv which frightens people to keep them quiet and stupid.
@zulle83 Contrary to what u say, not all Americans r ignorant. Many of them know how things work. It's just that somehow, their voices are never heard. This is a tradition in the US' history where only the incompetent and the mediocre people always have the last word. With very few exceptions, of course. But there are a lot of Americans who are very capable and who know the truth. They are the ones that could take America out of the shit it's in right now. They just have to be allowed to do it.
@StiviGun1 I don't hate american people, I just hate the way that few industrials and bankers rule the world silencing people which think with their own head and fill the head of americans with absurd fears to justify foreign policy. USA government correctly call 9/11 rescuers HEROES, but on the other side doesn't provide free health care to those who got cancer thanks to asbestos and other poisons floating from the ruins. Instead they keep spending in weapons and wars. THAT is the shame.
@zulle83 Stop this pathetic propaganda. The US defense budget is about 5-6% of the total GDP so this is not the reason why they don't spend on health care and other programs. 5% from 14 trillion is actually nothing. Defense spending has nothing to do with the lack of health care programs. Stupid politicians (in specially republicans) who just want to fuck Obama are at fault for that. The reason why health care is not being implemented is because of lack of political will, not because there's not
@zulle83 enough money. That's what you're trying to imply: that US doesn't have money to spend on wealth care and other programs because it spends too much on military. This is a pathetic tactic and everybody who knows the figures of America's total GDP and the percentage of that GDP being spent on military can make you look like a fool... America needs a strong military, period. If there weren't other countries that specifically develop weapons against US and that want to surpass the US in
@zulle83 in military technology, then I would agree with you. But since there are countries that, at least theoretically pose a military threat for the US, the US must keep a very strong military.
@StiviGun1 and I agree with you, but it should be more and more the result of a strict cooperation between USA and european countries for a DEFENSIVE system, not -as often happens- USA attacks a country and then the United Nations have to care about disasters. the USA can protect other countries in case of war, but -by now- can't do anything in case of terrorism (such as happened in london -where terrorists were british islamics, so we can say that a terrorist could be anyone- and mafrid).
@zulle83 The Americans do cooperate with the Europeans in the defense sector. But that doesn't mean they have to give the Europeans every piece of technology they have and that doesn't mean that the US is obliged to protect the Europeans and the Europeans can just sit on their asses without doing anything. The US has protected them from the soviet threat for 50 years anyway.
As for terrorists, they are a different kind of enemy, much harder to defeat, but the US is doing quite a good job on it.
@StiviGun1 bombing 25 countries in 1945-2003 doesn't lead to feel safe at your own home. I admire people like Norman Schwarzkopf who did their job well, but had been preposterously stopped by government. Saddam was a criminal in 1991 as much as in 2003, so why they didn't take him off before? in afghanistan talibans already went back controlling most of the country, iraq and lybia are destabilized countries with an high risk of islam fanatics infiltrations. that's not the way to fight terrorism
@zulle83 What are those 25 countries that the US bombed between 1945-2003? I can only think at about 3-4 of them. Of course, air campaigns are not the same with bombing a country, I believe you understand that.
As for Saddam in 2003, the Bush adm has done the most stupid thing they could do. That adm was a disaster for America (and the world). I agree that many of the US' external politics are shit. As for Libya, that's more the French' game, not the US'.
@zulle83 I see that you also put Kuwait and Libya on the list... This proves that you're either ignorant or you're conducting a denigration campaign on YT. Kuwait was PROTECTED by the US... And in Libya, US had a very small role, at the very beginning of the conflict. They redrew very fast from that conflict. So your anti-American propaganda is really pathetic...
@StiviGun1 ok for the kuwait, I agree even if it's included in official lists. maybe they count it for the post-war unexploded bombs troubles. but Lybia can't be excluded... I'm still hearing in these days flying over my head your fighters from Aviano going down at least twice a day and in the very beginning it was much more massive and included cargo planes and helicopters, so it's not that marginal... and even if you deny that, you can't deny the operations in 1986.
@zulle83 Korea also can't be counted. That war was not an aggression from the Unite States. That war started because of the North's aggression. And Libya can't really be put on the list of the countries it bombed because the Americans only had a small role in that conflict. Right now, its the UK and France's fighters that do the bombings in Libya. And since they're not even bombing the infrastructure, I wouldn't call that bombing of the country.
@StiviGun1 Korea is much more controversial than Kuwait... I'd count it too. as for the fighters, I can assure you that they are not french Mirages or newer Rafales (this time for sure french fighters take off from France) nor Tornados or Eurofighters. by now from Aviano take off twice a day only american planes, F15-F16-F18. don't know if any stealth is currently in use there. i just can say that at least this time the usa respect islamic friday rest with no operations on that weekday.
@zulle83 Why is Korea more controversial? The North attacked the South and America reacted defending its allies and interests in the region. What's so controversial about that?
As for the fighters that you say you see taking off from Aviano, i find that hard to believe. The F-18 doesn't even take off from land based runways, it is used on carriers. Only Australia uses them from land runways and as far as I know, they're not participating in this conflict. From what I know, America's role has
@StiviGun1 Korea: is controversial because it's a country which have been divided by WWII winners... an attempt to invade each other was predictable if not expected from the beginning. it has been a stupid decision as much as sacrifying Czechoslovakia and Poland -invaded by Hitler, not his allieds- to the reds.
more detailed map if i was mistaken with some bases.
@zulle83 Well, actually, if you think about it, that war was actually a Russian aggression. They wanted to use the North to expand their influence in Asia. The North was the USSR's puppet and they did what they were told. So you still can't put Korea on the list of counties that US has conducted an aggression against.
@zulle83 As for Poland and Czechoslovakia, I don't think they were sacrificed to the reds. The allies simply couldn't do anything about that. They could've done something, but that would've meant to start another, even more atrocious war in Europe. The thing is the allies (because of their own stupidity and lack of insight in weaponry) didn't have enough armor to oppose the soviets. So there was nothing they could do to stop the soviets to occupy those countries.
@StiviGun1 they could do much more than what has been done. look at the Ussr national borders before 1939 and after the war. they gained that much territory thanks to 1939 invasion of Poland from east while hitler was invading from west, so it had to be considered a violation of the Treaty of Versailles which had to be repaid after the war. Czechoslovakia was the only one country in europe which didn't have Far-right politics in parliament... austria had to be the right example also for Germany.
@zulle83 Germany was too strong and everybody feared the Nazis at that time. The main enemy was the Nazis. So they got over the fact that the soviets violated the Versailles treaty. So they helped the Russians to fight the Nazis and, let's face it, without the Russians, the war probably wouldn't have been won. The problem was that the war made the USSR a military superpower, it came out of the war with a huge army that the western armies were no match for. So they couldn't practically do
@zulle83 anything to stop them from occupying those countries. Although the Americans did act pretty softly. They shouldn't have redrawn their armies from Europe and they should've put more tanks and artillery at the border with the East Berlin. Who knows, if they had listened to General Patton, maybe the Russians wouldn't have gained so much influence in Europe. Many of the US politicians thought that such actions would start a war with the soviets. Yeah, they had the loser's mentality.
@zulle83 ended almost immediately after the conflict began. Their role was mostly to destroy Libya's air defenses so the rest of the NATO's fighters can operate with impunity. I don't know what F-15s and F-16s you see there. Although the F-16 is used by other NATO countries, like Netherlands and Norway who also participate in this campaign. And from what I know, Italy uses them too.
@zulle83 So what are the other bases offering that the Aviano base doesn't? ANd even if what you say it's true, you still can't add Libya on the list of the countries that was bombed by the US. 1st of all, from what I know, they're not bombing the infrastructure, so you can't call that a bombing of a country. And there are other countries in there as well. The biggest role in there is played by France and UK, not by the US.
@zulle83 Yeah, just like I suspected. You have no idea what an aerial campaign is and what bombing a country is. Out of all these countries you enumerated only several meet the "bombing a country criteria". These are Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Serbia in 1999. The others just suffered aerial campaigns. Aerial campaign is a total different thing from bombing a country.
To answer the question because the same people who allow Hitler, I mean Iran to develop nukes, are the same people that would prevent the U.S. from responding to a nuclear attack on Israel or any of its allies.
@FInalage2012 not trying to sound like a jack ass, but look at what happened on 9-11, there were over 1000 metric toms on bombs dropped on iraq with in a few days. i would have to think that after a nuclear bomb went off on american soil the retalition would be a thousand times greather that what happened after 9-11
you dont understand how it works nowadays everyone has nuclear missles many of those missles are global also blowing up another country will result in other countrys blowng us up all the radiation will cause a global nuclear winter thats one of the reasons why we dont use our thousands of nuclear weapons now it worked during WWII because only we had them NOT NOW.
It doesn't matter what country a nuke gets used on. If we are sitting here quietly one day and Pakistan shoots off their nukes, so does EVERYONE else. No one knows the intended target besides the person who hit the button. Its a simple case of "one and done". One gets used, they all get used, and we all die.
The problem is; who is the US going to nuke if the US is hit by terrorists?
Is Iran (Tehran) really a valid target?
Would it not be very difficult to justify a nuclear attack on for example Iran killing hundres of thousands of innocent people??
Thats the problem. Power does not always solve those issues. And thats why Iran supports terrorist groups. They can distance themselfs from the attacks, making it difficult for tough retaliation.
so if you are not worry why you killed unarmed Bin laden without justice and court. i think democracy and liberation is based on law and court is for everyone. US did like Hitler in Europe, its cowards move!!!!
about the question you gave: when a huge nuclear crater will replace NYC, you will be able to throw all the nukes you want, but they will not rebuild the city nor resurrect the over 8 millions inhabitants.
about the question you gave: when a huge nuclear crater will replace NYC, you can throw all the nukes you want, but they will not rebuild the city nor resurrect the over 8 millions inhabitants.
@orkneymist you are right. Killing over 200.000 CIVILIANS in 2 days and completely destroy 2 cities is way long better than starting peace negotiations with an already defeated nation.
The answer to your question about why we should be afraid is that terrorists are suicidal dead-enders who don't care about dying themselves. Given that, they WILL use a nuclear weapon, dying in the process and not caring one thing about our own nuclear deterrent. For those of us who don't want to die yet, that nothing-to-lose mentality is very problematic.
BECAUSE an aggressively dangerous nation like Iran might use its nukes on American allies like Isreal or one of the nations of Europe. The US would become involved in a potential world war if such a thing happened. Isreal would retaliate - massively - but they would have already lost huge numbers of citizens. France & Britain have nukes, but most European countries don't. More countries possessing nukes does threaten the US. We are no longer trying to "deter" one nation or group, but many.
This is exactly that kind of thinking that brings us all in serious trouble! The invention of nukes is one of the most horrible things in the sad history of mankinds horrible things... no further words for such a stupid statement.
@Brane771x bro excuse me but これは、もし私たちが日本人を爆撃しなければあなたが話しているものです translation this is what you would be speaking if we didn't invent the nuclear bomb. so be thankful to the US. and we have enough tecnology to see when there going to launch a nuke SO YEA
@proudnation33 ...like Barrack Obama said: the world would be a better and safer place without nuclear weapons at all! Wise words... you can ask the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki bro.
@Brane771x accually i cant because well THERE DEAD and maybe its repopulated but they will never forget america and barack obama is my president so i respect him but i think the nuke help scare the nazis to show america is not messing around and they well..................... gave up
@proudnation33 Germany surrendered BEFORE we dropped the 2 atomic bombs on Japan, so there was no "lesson" to teach them in doing that. They were already defeated.
I dont think the effectiveness of the U.S. strategic deterrence is in question. I think the issue is rogue states having greater clout or even the will to carry out a first strike. theres even a chance they could pass on that nuclear know-how to someone else adding to the problem of nuclear proliferation. Iran giving Hezbollah a small yield nuke doesnt sound favorable to anyone's interest. Dont forget the Trident missiles and the Minuteman missiles we still have in addition to our bombers.
There's an est. 22,000 nuclear war heads in existence today. That's enough to wipe out all of man kind twice over.You don't have to be scared, but be very aware. It is a real threat to all.
Answer: You should be afraid, because nuclear retaliation is an idle threat if the atomic bomb is in the hands of (maybe even suicidial) terrorists whom can't be retaliated upon. That's what asymmetric warfare is all about!
By the way, the question is very interesting to discuss. Look up "game theory" in wikipedia for further reading.
Cut the jingoistic nonsense. Victory goes to the most determined to win, period. Anyone who'd believe the US would turn the oil fields into a radioactive wasteland is not thinking. Every major player on the modern battlefield has strengths and weaknesses and everyone is vulnerable to loss. A global war would very likely kill us all, American, Russian, German, Frenchman...everyone because the resulting economic collapse would be devastating. Try embracing humanity once, you might like it.
First of all we must find free oil in Iraq, free gold in Afghanistan, free oil in Libya, allow the banks to commit proactive "designer" fraud and the democratic process "purchased" by the multi nationals, allowing the people to pay for the debts of their leaders and the politicians and industrial military complex and associated global elite and preferred "shareholders" to benefit whilst the world bleeds to death without succour, support. A world without shame or honour.
A different place from the total collapse into corruption, theft, rape of nations, lies and fraud. NOT LONG NOW before the world comes to an end. All the while good people remain silent this will never stop. As people complacent, there really is no hope.
In affect that supports what NWO and the USA already know and that is that the "people" are leaderless and the industrial military complex and the banking fraudsters can do "exactly" as they see fit.
Thats a mentality that would end the world. Someone nukes us, we nuke back leaving 2 cities in the world unliveable for another 600 years. If someone nuke us we would have to surrender and give ourselves up and lose our pride so that the the world won't descend into nuclear fucking fire
@AwesomeGamer4 If another country nukes us, we would respond with a full nuclear retaliation, which they respond with theirs. then, our allies will nuke their allies and vice versa. So no, 2 cities won't be uninhabitable for 600 years. The earth will be uninhabitable for a thousand years.
You do realize that if you send 66 b-52s to a single place for a airstrike you're going to waste a lot of fuel and alot of them are going to get shot down. And if theres only 66 b-52s I doubt that they'll send more than 1 at a single place.
I dont understand what the uploader is trying to prove by talking of B-52s. Strategic Nuclear Bombing has been obsolete for decades. The majority of developed nations have long range SAMs capable of bringing down a B-52 from 100km away. A stratofortress wouldnt come within visual range of China before dozens of KS-1s and HQ-17s had fired missiles at it.
Have you been to the nuclear test site tour in Nevada? They do it once a month, first or last Tues. You must be born in the US, no foreigners. But, don't be upset there is a museum in Las Vegas on E.Flamingo right next to the strip, well a block up. You will then learn why it was so important of a program to have, maintain over the years. Several times the russians and Chinese were to use them on us, but overall it's a deterant, not a strike force. Think about it. Thanks
well, we fail to recognize the major players in the nuclear community, Korea and Iran are very minor players. Russia which has inherited from the former Soviet System as many, if not more, than ours, Red China a long time thermo nuclear power, France and Great Britain. Israel is also a thermonuclear power. Now for the minor players...who aren't that minor, India, Pakistan, N. Korea. Now, honestly, we can't let little fire crackers like Nkorea and Iran set off the big firecrackers. Ok?..
the fact that we have in a single aircraft the firepower to level a mid sized nation keeps people who also have lots of nukes laying around from getting the mistaken impression ANYONE can win a nuclear exchange ( including us). A religious fanatic, or a megalomaniacal sociopath is a wild card, nothing will deter them once they decide to act. So you do your best to keep the folks you can deter deterred, and try to deal with the occasional wild card the best you can.
Not to mention that Russia's ballistic missiles are more powerful and they also have a fleet of strategic bombers, which is much larger than the US's strategic bombers fleet. So, yurbud, all your anti-weapons development & procurement propaganda bullshits simply don't stand, because they are not based on reality, a reality in which Russia is superior 2 the US in strategic & also conventional capabilities.
There is a problem here. One related to logic and knowledge. Iran & N Korea are not nuclear threats 2 US. Russia & China are. And a B-52 has little chances 2 penetrate the Russians airspace in order 2 launch its missiles, which BTW, don't have an over 3000 miles range, they have a range of 2400 km. From that distance they can be engaged with long range missiles or intercepted by fighter-interceptors like SU-27 or MiG-31. So everything u said here yurbud, is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
This is the most stupid video I've ever seen on Youtube. This motherfucker is an innocent poser who thinks he knows everything. Go get a life you stupid pussy shit.
@theironhorse22 A nuclear WAR will bring unimaginable devistation and ruin to any continent(s). The radiation clouds and fallout spells impending obliteration. Let us just all promote a deterant. These nukes are not the Nagasaki or Hiroshima war nukes. Multiply bigboy and littleboy by five-hundred or a thousand times each. With just a few dozen of USA's short range and long range missiles, bombers, subs, and ships nukes launched it's the end of the world that was. Nuclear WAR a NO WIN THE END
@theironhorse22 . NukeWar = endless problems everywhere. Rebuilding and radiation cleanup in any countrys nuke war if they still have civilization there will unfortunately be our problem. If we gotta and we should it'll be our problem too.
.....and exactly who wants to " invade "the USA ??? they would be tomahawked to death before breakfast ! it is simply not possible to invade ! its full of...." Americans " anyway !
And isnt there an SSBN or 3 still parked just off Certain Coastlines ??? Besides all this, the Chinese have found the correct method. Buy the joint . They even have a receipt ...lolmao.
tasman763 1 month ago
BECOUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE MEN IN POWER TO DO IT AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE LADY GAGA SO STORE GUNS N FOOD UP FOR SHIT TIMES TO COME DONT TAKE ANY FLU SHOTS OR WOODEN NICKLES RED LIST SHIT DEATH SAME BLUE N YELLOW NO FEMA CAMPS FOR ME AND I WOULD PRESS THE BUTTON BUT THEN IM NOT LADY GAGA. GHOST! PS LOOK UP ALEX JONES.PEACE!
eye2eyeize 1 month ago
This is so idiotic....if there would be fullscale nuclear war between US and Russia, there wouldnt be any winners....every1 would loose....we all know that both Russia and US have enough nukes to blow eachother back to stone age and the world would suffer from massive fallout and nuclear winter....
As for terrorists, they dont represent any one nation...terrorists have cells all over the world, thus if terrorsit would attack with nukes, you cant strike back at them with nukes...
Balnazzardi 2 months ago
on china we should tax every thing comming into the usa ever contry does that but we dont y its sick they bring in trash billions and we dont tax come on they ship 10 cars to the usa to our 2 tax tax tax them let put a hold on them while we still can
sertox12345 2 months ago
And still americans live in a state of perpetual fear.(time to get a set of balls)
dsspike51 3 months ago
but if a b-52 deployed a nuke the pilots wouldn't get out in time
jamescc133n4 3 months ago
If either one country fires nukes to blow the other, the other threatens to blow the whole world...that's why no one uses any nukes any more. But if terrorists got nukes, they will fire it whatever you say, this is very scary...
Triplewave4 3 months ago
you forget-if we fired ours-they'd fire theirs,and we'd all be fucked.
wavular 4 months ago
can anyone remind me which is THE ONLY COUNTRY which have ever used a nuclear bomb (in fact were dropped 2 of them) and used it against CIVILIAN population????
zulle83 5 months ago
@zulle83 I'm not losing any sleep over nuking the japs. Estimates at the time were that hundreds of thousands of lives both american and japs civilian/military would have lost their lives if we hadn't cut the war short. Far more than what 2 atomic bombs did. WW2 was considered a Total War...no holds barred...for a reason. If the krauts or japs would have gotten a hold of nukes they would have done the same to the allies. The bombing of london and jap/german cities were aimed at civilians as well
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 You're 100% right, the Japs wouldn't have surrendered that easy without those bombs (maybe it would have been enough just showing the effects of the bomb to the Japs without erazing 2 cities???) and the bombings of London were against civilians (but they were much more similar to conventional weapons). I just don't like when History books are written only according to the winners' tales... e.g. I don't know how many people know that the USA had their racial laws until the '60s...
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Umm its cool to play monday morning quarterback by saying maybe we should have shown the effects on the japs before we bombed them? You do realize we showed them the effects on hiroshima and gave them 3 days to respond. They refused so we used the second nuke. I think they got the point. So what if the bombings of london, berlin, dresden, tokyo were only conventional? It was just as bad since more people died in these bombings than with the 2 atomic bombs. History books are accurate.
damiion666 4 months ago
Comment removed
zulle83 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damiion666 or if they know who sold lots of weapons to Afghan Talibans and Saddam in the 80s. or if they know anything about Operation Paperclip, which carried many guilty nazis (including von Braun) to the U.S.A., or if they know that CIA tested the effects of LSD on unconscious french civilians in the 50s... U.S.A. does not mean freedom for anyone. they just had enough luck to win WWII and the cold war. nowadays it means bombing for oil and carrying economic crysis towards civilized world.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 What is your point about the US selling weapons to afghans and saddam in the 80's? The enemy back then was the soviet union. You do realize that alliances change? For example germany used to be our enemy and so was italy. Today we are part of the same alliance. LOL @ "the cia tested lsd". At least we didn';t murder 6 million jews or 5 million chinese like your favorite axis powers did. At least we can change our attitudes ourselves without having a world war change it for us.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 the point is how going around the world stiring pots of s*it selling weapons and threatening the world 20 years later telling that they are terrorists. right, germany and italy were enemies of U.S.A, but after the war the U.S.A. planted usaf bases in those country to "keep the freedom"... no jews killed in the U.S.A., but millions of native americans, american japanese people kept in camps during WWII (and used as guinea pigs for experiments, such as jews in nazi germany)... LOL.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Your point about selling weapons makes no sense. If I lend my gun to my neighbor 20 years ago to defend himself against someone and then he turns around and uses that gun against me how is that my fault? Unless one is psychic no one can predict which ally will turn into an enemy in the future and vice versa.
As far as planting bases guess what....u lost a world war get over it. British, french, and Americans are going to keep bases in those countries for a long time deal with it.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 a nation which spends over 20 billion dollars just for air conditioning its soldiers in afghanistan, invests only in war and drags all the world deeper and deeper into the economic crysis (thanks to many american jewish surnames...) doesn't have anything to teach anyone. I think that now Saddam was not convenient anymore because he wanted payments in Euros and not in $ anymore. in 1991 the great Norman Schwarzkopf understood the aim of modern american wars and quickly redired...
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 But now I see where you're coming from..."thanks to many american jewish surnames..." your bigotry is exposed. This is what we come to expect from a former axis powers what do u expect? Your credibility is thrown out the window. Don't worry where we spend our money on that is none of your concern. If we want to give air conditioning to our troops and give weapons to current allies that's our business too bad for you.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 in the end I can just say that the owning of an atomic bomb for a country is just a way not to get bombed by the U.S.A. (except MAYBE the crazy North Korea). it's not a weapon to be used, it's just an insurance policy.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 And your conclusion of just because a country used an atomic bomb against an aggressor nation during ww2 therefore it means they will use it again does not make sense. In case u haven't noticed no nukes have ever been used since ww2 it's called M.A.D....Mutually Assured Destruction. If it wasn't for responsible nations having nuclear capabilities we probably would have had one or two more world wars by this time. Fortunately peace thru strength proved worthwhile.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 i'm not saying that. i'm saying that THE ONLY ONE COUNTRY which used it can't be the judge in deciding who has the right to own it or doesn't. a country which randomly attack others (with pathetic theories such as links between Al Qaeda and Saddam) can't neither be defined "responsible". Medias are criminalizing Iran because of Sakineh and didn't spend a word about Teresa Lewis. It's clear they want to persuade people about the right to attack Iran. Nobel prize to Obama was a fraud..
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Sure it can. In a total war there are no holds barred. Since ww2 the US has never used nukes upon a non aggressor. This shows our restraint. Just the same there are only a certain amount of nations on a permanent security seat in the UN for a reason. Sorry but your opinion of "your country which randomly attack others with pathetic theories such as links between al qaeda..." don't worry about who we attack. It's our towers that were attacked not yours. Therefore we'll bring the fight.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 Germany had lost two World Wars, after WWII had 2 millions german refugees from other countries, had been divided, had been reunified with an underdeveloped east and is still the european locomotive. a country having over 300,000,000 people falls in a ten years lasting crysis because of 2000 dead and few buildings destroyed? maybe something has gone wrong somewhere...
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 You ever heard of the Martial Plan? After WW2 we pumped the european economies with money and aid for 4 years straight to help them on their. Also the Berlin Airlift where we literally saved berlin from starvation when the Soviets blockaded the city. Shortly after this incident NATO was formed to counter any Soviet threat. Yes I am proud of my nation helping with Germany's success story so what's your point? Don't worry about how we protect our citizens that's our perogative.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 if you mean the marshall plan i agree (even if the most was given to UK and france and those money didn't repay germany for the cost of a lost war. it was just a way to help for a new beginning -and to buy fidelity-). germany finished to pay war debts for WWI only in 2010 and is still paying for WWII. until the 50s american policy was policy. after that it became just speculation and interests. i don't mind how do you protect your citizens if you protect them at their own home
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 No not just the Marshll Plan but also the Berlin Airlift when the soviets were trying to starve the city into submission in 1948. We responded by flying in supplies for a full year until the soviets gave up. Every nation does things for their own interests this is not new. Frankly I don't care if u mind or not how we protect our citizens. We do what we do we don't ask for permission or advice on how to do it thanx.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 just a question: did all of these wars from 1945 make the world a safer place for the citizens of the western world?
zulle83 3 months ago
@zulle83 "i don't mind how do you protect your citizens if you protect them at their own home"...we will protect our citizens by any means possible even if it means go on the offensive as we did with the japs and nazi germany. We don't need foreigners telling us how to protect ourselves. To answer your question you would have to be more specific on which wars you're talking about. There have been a number of them.
damiion666 3 months ago
@damiion666 i hope you know what has been the CIA's Project MKULTRA, so you can understand how your politics protect you citizens...
and i hope you know what has been the Gleiwitz incident, so you can understand how a war against iran is going to begin.
zulle83 3 months ago
@zulle83 Sorry I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Let me guess...I bet you also believe the cia coordinated all the planes and used demolitions in 9/11/01.
damiion666 3 months ago
@damiion666 no, but i don't believe that Satanized Bin Laden can be the only one guilty.
MKULTRA is not "conspiracy" and it outcame only 25 years after it begun... think about it.
Lybia is finally free... I hope You know which were the rights of a lybian citizen in Gaddafi's regime... is it freedom or usual starving what is going to be there?
go on believing in official versions of everithing and live in the fear of a foreign danger... meanwhile your country goes on selling your future to China
zulle83 3 months ago
@zulle83 While I do agree people lie and do shit secretly, I don't believe in the bigger overall conspiracy theories. The bigger the secret, the harder it is for people to keep their mouths shut.
"Lybia is finally free"...yea, i don't give a shit either way about libya. Yea it's cool we helped get rid of kadafi, but we shoulda done it a long time ago. Don't really care about the rebels tho. Libya was to protect france's oil supply.
damiion666 3 months ago
@zulle83 "meanwhile your country goes on selling your future to China" Let me share the dirty little secret. China will never get paid back. If they try to collect, they commit economic suicide. It's called a symbiotic relationship. Basic economics 101. America has the natural resources, 2 oceans as borders, and the people willing to do the right thing to survive anything that might come our way. After all, we survived the Great Depression.
damiion666 3 months ago
@damiion666 Zaire has diamonds, but people is starving...
in 1996 (yes, 1996!!!) Gaddafi issued an international arrest warrant triugh INTERPOL against Bin Laden in connection with the murder in March 1994 of two German anti-terrorism agents.
Five months after, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
what were the USA doing meanwhile?
I hope you have read yesterday's Mustafa Abdel Jalil's speaking...
Can you call it terrorism prevention?
zulle83 3 months ago
@zulle83 Dude..wtf is ur point? Just spit it out! Me personally, I wouldn't even have gotten involved with the whole libya fiasco. Not in our interest either way.
damiion666 3 months ago
@damiion666 the point is: 1- having natural resources doesn't mean you'll be a rich country in the future.
2- i know lybia was more a french affair, but USA had the "leadership from behind" (not my words). the whole strategy of the war against terrorism is failing. in fact it's just destabilizing countries killing regimes, making possible for al qaeda to infiltrate in those countries and giving the political power to the only well organized party in the whole arab world: Muslim Brotherhood.
zulle83 3 months ago
@zulle83 I would rather have al qaeda infiltrate a government and have it run said nation than to have it as an underground insurgency. Having them out in the open and holding governments accountable would be easier to target and annihilate and hold accountable.
damiion666 3 months ago
@zulle83 As for having natural resources, it makes a big difference on a nation's ability to rebound quickly. Look at russia and how it rose out of the ashes of the USSR. It had vast reserves of oil it could rely on. U cant compare zaire to the U.S. We have more than just one natural resource, and won't tolerate such regimes and American citizens, nevermind the military, are armed to the teeth to allow any dictator or foreign power to just walk in and take what they want.
damiion666 3 months ago
@damiion666 can you tell me how that is true when the usa spends more than all the contrys put together lol are armed to the teeth can you show me ## i would like to see real ## than i will show you what the usa## are look you guys are going to become a team with the usa in the future look at chine and iran that is what you should b looking at dont trush them never
sertox12345 2 months ago
sertox12345 2 months ago
@sertox12345 Nothing wrong with spending money on defense budget. What's ur point? During WW2 we also produced the most material, we were known as the arsenal of democracy. If it were up to me we'd spend MORE money to modernize our nuclear arsenal.
On china, yes I agree we should tariff all their imports because they refuse to raise the value of their currency. I believe in FAIR trade, not FREE trade for china.
damiion666 2 months ago
The U.S.A. itself and its policy are biggest dangers for the U.S.A..
For those who says "Pakistan", which already owns the nuclear bomb, I remind them that the U.S.A., such as other "western" countries, are selling planes, technology and military equipment to that country...
zulle83 5 months ago
Actually, Russia and China are two countries that pose nuclear threats for the United States, at least theoretically. But theoretically can very rapidly change into practically. Nothing is always certain. Anyway, Russia and China also have such strategic bombers, Russia even has a larger fleet with more capable bombers. They also have more powerful ICBMs, so I would say that US is under nuclear threat from at least two countries.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 I agree. Peace through strength. Let's bring these mothballed bombers out of retirement.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 Yeah, peace through strength. That's exactly what those pathetic anti-military liberals don't understand. It's annoying how they use the argument that the US doesn't have an enemy to sabotage the US' weapons development.
As for these bombers, from what I know, the USAF is still using them. Aren't they still using them?
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 We still use B52's but my understanding is we've retired a good portion of the fleet.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 Yes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have diverted a lot of funds from actual weapons development and weapons procurement. Money is spent on some other places. The Iraq war should've never been started. These wars have actually decreased America's capabilities to defend itself but in the same time, the defense budget has increased. I really don't know where 700 billion dollars are going. And on what.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 I take a libertarian view of actually closing off some of our bases around the world just to regroup and consolidate our forces place them where they need to be. It's funny that these same people that bitch about the US having bases in their countries all sudden cry when we even mention the possibility of pulling out. Look at south korea. I'd be all for leaving them in charge of defending their borders but their govt wouldn't want us doing that.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 The truth is US does have a lot of bases around the world, many of them just cost a lot of money without offering anything in return. So yeah, closing off some military bases abroad would be just one solution of getting more funds where they need to be. Another one would be to simply end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and put the money spent on these wars where they need to be: on actual development and procurement of new weapons systems.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 for making what, for bullying Canada? sorry, but american bases around the world doesn't give anything tho the countries where they're located in (except for UFOs sightings and pollution). the day that U.S.A. will spend in education, welfare state and industrial development an half of the money they're spending in wars and weapons they are going to feel a free and safe country.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 When did the US bully Canada... WTF are you talking about?
And before you make some statements about something, you should go make some research. The US REALLY IS spending in education, welfare and other areas MUCH more than they spend on defense. Their defense budget is about 5% of their total GDP which is 14 trillion. So that's just a very small percentage. But the US has A LOT of enemies and it must invest in its defense if it wants to survive as a nation.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 if you didn't understand I made a stupid example to say that investing in new weapons for the already best armed and equipped country in the world would be totally useless. I could say "for bullying Martians"... the U.S.A. have the NEED of an enemy to attack, even invisible enemies, so periodically starts propaganda and then attacks. they can't live without a war, that's their drug. take care of U.S.A. economy and national debt instead of amusing people with foreign troubles.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Well, the US is not at all the best armed and equipped country in the world. This is just a pathetic excuse pathetic anti-military/anti-American losers use to convince the US politicians to not invest in their country's defense. People have always been jealous when America showed its military strength and I always found such people PATHETIC.
As for the rest of what you said, only pathetic conspiracy theories that have already been proven to be false.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 if you are talking about Switzerland I don't think they have enough people to attack anyone. YOU are pathetic. USA think theirselves as the beloved liberators and savers, but in fact they're the most hatred country in the world. think about it and keep your "toys" for yourselves. you didn't have a war in your country since 1865, so why do you carry your beloved war all over the world? you could destroy the world AT LEAST 20 TIMES with your weapons... whatever do you need more???
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 I;m not talking about Switzerland, I'm talking about Russia and China who develop a lot of weapons against the US. This is a fact and it doesn't matter what pathetic American haters like you think or want.
America can destroy the world 20 times... Well, this is actually an exaggeration, but yes, the US has the potential to destroy the world and so does Russia. But I'm talking about conventional weapons. This is where America starts to be left behind and this is very dangerous for US.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 how many people in U.S.A. own a passport and travelled outside the country? soldiers and families don't count, because in the usaf bases aroud the world american people live, buy, study, entertain theirselves INSIDE THE BASES with no idea of the external world. americans should start travelling abroad (an not only for the post-college or post-whatever trip) and start looking to the world through their own eyes, not only through tv which frightens people to keep them quiet and stupid.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Contrary to what u say, not all Americans r ignorant. Many of them know how things work. It's just that somehow, their voices are never heard. This is a tradition in the US' history where only the incompetent and the mediocre people always have the last word. With very few exceptions, of course. But there are a lot of Americans who are very capable and who know the truth. They are the ones that could take America out of the shit it's in right now. They just have to be allowed to do it.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 I don't hate american people, I just hate the way that few industrials and bankers rule the world silencing people which think with their own head and fill the head of americans with absurd fears to justify foreign policy. USA government correctly call 9/11 rescuers HEROES, but on the other side doesn't provide free health care to those who got cancer thanks to asbestos and other poisons floating from the ruins. Instead they keep spending in weapons and wars. THAT is the shame.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Stop this pathetic propaganda. The US defense budget is about 5-6% of the total GDP so this is not the reason why they don't spend on health care and other programs. 5% from 14 trillion is actually nothing. Defense spending has nothing to do with the lack of health care programs. Stupid politicians (in specially republicans) who just want to fuck Obama are at fault for that. The reason why health care is not being implemented is because of lack of political will, not because there's not
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@zulle83 enough money. That's what you're trying to imply: that US doesn't have money to spend on wealth care and other programs because it spends too much on military. This is a pathetic tactic and everybody who knows the figures of America's total GDP and the percentage of that GDP being spent on military can make you look like a fool... America needs a strong military, period. If there weren't other countries that specifically develop weapons against US and that want to surpass the US in
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@zulle83 in military technology, then I would agree with you. But since there are countries that, at least theoretically pose a military threat for the US, the US must keep a very strong military.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 and I agree with you, but it should be more and more the result of a strict cooperation between USA and european countries for a DEFENSIVE system, not -as often happens- USA attacks a country and then the United Nations have to care about disasters. the USA can protect other countries in case of war, but -by now- can't do anything in case of terrorism (such as happened in london -where terrorists were british islamics, so we can say that a terrorist could be anyone- and mafrid).
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 The Americans do cooperate with the Europeans in the defense sector. But that doesn't mean they have to give the Europeans every piece of technology they have and that doesn't mean that the US is obliged to protect the Europeans and the Europeans can just sit on their asses without doing anything. The US has protected them from the soviet threat for 50 years anyway.
As for terrorists, they are a different kind of enemy, much harder to defeat, but the US is doing quite a good job on it.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 bombing 25 countries in 1945-2003 doesn't lead to feel safe at your own home. I admire people like Norman Schwarzkopf who did their job well, but had been preposterously stopped by government. Saddam was a criminal in 1991 as much as in 2003, so why they didn't take him off before? in afghanistan talibans already went back controlling most of the country, iraq and lybia are destabilized countries with an high risk of islam fanatics infiltrations. that's not the way to fight terrorism
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 What are those 25 countries that the US bombed between 1945-2003? I can only think at about 3-4 of them. Of course, air campaigns are not the same with bombing a country, I believe you understand that.
As for Saddam in 2003, the Bush adm has done the most stupid thing they could do. That adm was a disaster for America (and the world). I agree that many of the US' external politics are shit. As for Libya, that's more the French' game, not the US'.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
zulle83 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Libya 2011
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 I see that you also put Kuwait and Libya on the list... This proves that you're either ignorant or you're conducting a denigration campaign on YT. Kuwait was PROTECTED by the US... And in Libya, US had a very small role, at the very beginning of the conflict. They redrew very fast from that conflict. So your anti-American propaganda is really pathetic...
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 ok for the kuwait, I agree even if it's included in official lists. maybe they count it for the post-war unexploded bombs troubles. but Lybia can't be excluded... I'm still hearing in these days flying over my head your fighters from Aviano going down at least twice a day and in the very beginning it was much more massive and included cargo planes and helicopters, so it's not that marginal... and even if you deny that, you can't deny the operations in 1986.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Korea also can't be counted. That war was not an aggression from the Unite States. That war started because of the North's aggression. And Libya can't really be put on the list of the countries it bombed because the Americans only had a small role in that conflict. Right now, its the UK and France's fighters that do the bombings in Libya. And since they're not even bombing the infrastructure, I wouldn't call that bombing of the country.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 Korea is much more controversial than Kuwait... I'd count it too. as for the fighters, I can assure you that they are not french Mirages or newer Rafales (this time for sure french fighters take off from France) nor Tornados or Eurofighters. by now from Aviano take off twice a day only american planes, F15-F16-F18. don't know if any stealth is currently in use there. i just can say that at least this time the usa respect islamic friday rest with no operations on that weekday.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Why is Korea more controversial? The North attacked the South and America reacted defending its allies and interests in the region. What's so controversial about that?
As for the fighters that you say you see taking off from Aviano, i find that hard to believe. The F-18 doesn't even take off from land based runways, it is used on carriers. Only Australia uses them from land runways and as far as I know, they're not participating in this conflict. From what I know, America's role has
StiviGun1 4 months ago
Comment removed
zulle83 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 Korea: is controversial because it's a country which have been divided by WWII winners... an attempt to invade each other was predictable if not expected from the beginning. it has been a stupid decision as much as sacrifying Czechoslovakia and Poland -invaded by Hitler, not his allieds- to the reds.
more detailed map if i was mistaken with some bases.
ht tp://it[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/File:Coalition_action_against_Libya[dot]svg
remove space after ht and replace [dot] with .
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Well, actually, if you think about it, that war was actually a Russian aggression. They wanted to use the North to expand their influence in Asia. The North was the USSR's puppet and they did what they were told. So you still can't put Korea on the list of counties that US has conducted an aggression against.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@zulle83 As for Poland and Czechoslovakia, I don't think they were sacrificed to the reds. The allies simply couldn't do anything about that. They could've done something, but that would've meant to start another, even more atrocious war in Europe. The thing is the allies (because of their own stupidity and lack of insight in weaponry) didn't have enough armor to oppose the soviets. So there was nothing they could do to stop the soviets to occupy those countries.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 they could do much more than what has been done. look at the Ussr national borders before 1939 and after the war. they gained that much territory thanks to 1939 invasion of Poland from east while hitler was invading from west, so it had to be considered a violation of the Treaty of Versailles which had to be repaid after the war. Czechoslovakia was the only one country in europe which didn't have Far-right politics in parliament... austria had to be the right example also for Germany.
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 Germany was too strong and everybody feared the Nazis at that time. The main enemy was the Nazis. So they got over the fact that the soviets violated the Versailles treaty. So they helped the Russians to fight the Nazis and, let's face it, without the Russians, the war probably wouldn't have been won. The problem was that the war made the USSR a military superpower, it came out of the war with a huge army that the western armies were no match for. So they couldn't practically do
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@zulle83 anything to stop them from occupying those countries. Although the Americans did act pretty softly. They shouldn't have redrawn their armies from Europe and they should've put more tanks and artillery at the border with the East Berlin. Who knows, if they had listened to General Patton, maybe the Russians wouldn't have gained so much influence in Europe. Many of the US politicians thought that such actions would start a war with the soviets. Yeah, they had the loser's mentality.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@zulle83 ended almost immediately after the conflict began. Their role was mostly to destroy Libya's air defenses so the rest of the NATO's fighters can operate with impunity. I don't know what F-15s and F-16s you see there. Although the F-16 is used by other NATO countries, like Netherlands and Norway who also participate in this campaign. And from what I know, Italy uses them too.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 for these operations in Lybia:
dutch and spanish fighters are stationed in Decimomannu base (Aeronautica militare italiana).
canadian and italian (including F-16s) ones in Trapani-Birgi base (Aeronautica militare italiana).
danish ones in Sigonella base (U.S. Air force).
belgians in Araxos, Greece.
brits in Cyprus.
norvegians in Crete.
USAF is quite jealous of Aviano base...
zulle83 4 months ago
@zulle83 So what are the other bases offering that the Aviano base doesn't? ANd even if what you say it's true, you still can't add Libya on the list of the countries that was bombed by the US. 1st of all, from what I know, they're not bombing the infrastructure, so you can't call that a bombing of a country. And there are other countries in there as well. The biggest role in there is played by France and UK, not by the US.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@zulle83 Yeah, just like I suspected. You have no idea what an aerial campaign is and what bombing a country is. Out of all these countries you enumerated only several meet the "bombing a country criteria". These are Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Serbia in 1999. The others just suffered aerial campaigns. Aerial campaign is a total different thing from bombing a country.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
To answer the question because the same people who allow Hitler, I mean Iran to develop nukes, are the same people that would prevent the U.S. from responding to a nuclear attack on Israel or any of its allies.
FInalage2012 5 months ago
@FInalage2012 not trying to sound like a jack ass, but look at what happened on 9-11, there were over 1000 metric toms on bombs dropped on iraq with in a few days. i would have to think that after a nuclear bomb went off on american soil the retalition would be a thousand times greather that what happened after 9-11
cmon424 5 months ago
@cmon424 you mixed up iraq and afganisthan. but that's OK, same happend to bush.
udirt 4 months ago
you dont understand how it works nowadays everyone has nuclear missles many of those missles are global also blowing up another country will result in other countrys blowng us up all the radiation will cause a global nuclear winter thats one of the reasons why we dont use our thousands of nuclear weapons now it worked during WWII because only we had them NOT NOW.
peaceoutwhat 5 months ago
It doesn't matter what country a nuke gets used on. If we are sitting here quietly one day and Pakistan shoots off their nukes, so does EVERYONE else. No one knows the intended target besides the person who hit the button. Its a simple case of "one and done". One gets used, they all get used, and we all die.
Sp33dyD3m0n 5 months ago
We should be concerned if a country gets nukes if they are willing to sacrifice their entire nation to get to 'paradise'
kramselab 6 months ago
The problem is; who is the US going to nuke if the US is hit by terrorists?
Is Iran (Tehran) really a valid target?
Would it not be very difficult to justify a nuclear attack on for example Iran killing hundres of thousands of innocent people??
Thats the problem. Power does not always solve those issues. And thats why Iran supports terrorist groups. They can distance themselfs from the attacks, making it difficult for tough retaliation.
Norwegian733 6 months ago
so if you are not worry why you killed unarmed Bin laden without justice and court. i think democracy and liberation is based on law and court is for everyone. US did like Hitler in Europe, its cowards move!!!!
Johny666EU 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only real threat to the US is Israel.
TheNonConformative 6 months ago
"Who is a nuclear threat to the United States?"
The Confederate States of America. The best way to bring a superpower down - let their countrymen fight each other. Works everytime.
purpleravenstar 6 months ago
Nobodies a Nuclear threat to us, we have the Star wars Program, with lasers, Missles are not going to be able to reach us with that.
TheDARIEN54321 6 months ago
no one is a threat ?? russia has 5000 nukes more than US of A thats a threat
boabp84 6 months ago
@boabp84 your stupid stay out the gene pool.
puzzypirate 6 months ago
@boabp84 you're full of steaming shit
DREwestcoast 6 months ago
@boabp84 It doesn't matter.. whoever makes the first move will end the world. Retaliation back and forth won't solve shit
ZX6r001 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
about the question you gave: when a huge nuclear crater will replace NYC, you will be able to throw all the nukes you want, but they will not rebuild the city nor resurrect the over 8 millions inhabitants.
Khurtes 6 months ago
about the question you gave: when a huge nuclear crater will replace NYC, you can throw all the nukes you want, but they will not rebuild the city nor resurrect the over 8 millions inhabitants.
Khurtes 6 months ago
@orkneymist you are right. Killing over 200.000 CIVILIANS in 2 days and completely destroy 2 cities is way long better than starting peace negotiations with an already defeated nation.
Khurtes 6 months ago
The answer to your question about why we should be afraid is that terrorists are suicidal dead-enders who don't care about dying themselves. Given that, they WILL use a nuclear weapon, dying in the process and not caring one thing about our own nuclear deterrent. For those of us who don't want to die yet, that nothing-to-lose mentality is very problematic.
kensimmonsmba 6 months ago
One day, they'll run out of money for fuel; then we can pound them in to plowshares.
cheekieweekie 7 months ago
BECAUSE an aggressively dangerous nation like Iran might use its nukes on American allies like Isreal or one of the nations of Europe. The US would become involved in a potential world war if such a thing happened. Isreal would retaliate - massively - but they would have already lost huge numbers of citizens. France & Britain have nukes, but most European countries don't. More countries possessing nukes does threaten the US. We are no longer trying to "deter" one nation or group, but many.
redletter2008 7 months ago
This is exactly that kind of thinking that brings us all in serious trouble! The invention of nukes is one of the most horrible things in the sad history of mankinds horrible things... no further words for such a stupid statement.
Brane771x 7 months ago
@Brane771x
Just be glad the Nazis didn't invent it first...
DarthMessias 7 months ago
@DarthMessias I`am indeed.
Brane771x 7 months ago
@Brane771x bro excuse me but これは、もし私たちが日本人を爆撃しなければあなたが話しているものです translation this is what you would be speaking if we didn't invent the nuclear bomb. so be thankful to the US. and we have enough tecnology to see when there going to launch a nuke SO YEA
proudnation33 7 months ago
@proudnation33 ...like Barrack Obama said: the world would be a better and safer place without nuclear weapons at all! Wise words... you can ask the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki bro.
Brane771x 7 months ago
@Brane771x accually i cant because well THERE DEAD and maybe its repopulated but they will never forget america and barack obama is my president so i respect him but i think the nuke help scare the nazis to show america is not messing around and they well..................... gave up
proudnation33 7 months ago
@proudnation33 not all of them died.
rokc787 7 months ago
@proudnation33 incorrect. the Nazi's surrendered before we dropped the nukes on japan
TRAPBOULTERNAS 7 months ago
@proudnation33 Germany surrendered BEFORE we dropped the 2 atomic bombs on Japan, so there was no "lesson" to teach them in doing that. They were already defeated.
jonesy97 7 months ago
I dont think the effectiveness of the U.S. strategic deterrence is in question. I think the issue is rogue states having greater clout or even the will to carry out a first strike. theres even a chance they could pass on that nuclear know-how to someone else adding to the problem of nuclear proliferation. Iran giving Hezbollah a small yield nuke doesnt sound favorable to anyone's interest. Dont forget the Trident missiles and the Minuteman missiles we still have in addition to our bombers.
Rimasta1 7 months ago
Who cares, dead is dead ,whether it be a car accident, a bomb ,or a wife, somethings going to get ya, !!!!
whyalla71 7 months ago
tupolev tu95
sidddde11 7 months ago
I think its Albania .they are now most powerful nation in world
igzoMix 7 months ago
that aint enough power as the tazz bomb 50 000 000 mega ton bomb. now that is power
leethon91 8 months ago
@leethon91 its powerful yes but not very practical. they only built one for a reason.
Rimasta1 7 months ago
There's an est. 22,000 nuclear war heads in existence today. That's enough to wipe out all of man kind twice over.You don't have to be scared, but be very aware. It is a real threat to all.
jcaled24 8 months ago
Here's one, let's see you contradict this one... /watch?v=_hoJVC0bqg4
catsrevil17 8 months ago
Answer: You should be afraid, because nuclear retaliation is an idle threat if the atomic bomb is in the hands of (maybe even suicidial) terrorists whom can't be retaliated upon. That's what asymmetric warfare is all about!
By the way, the question is very interesting to discuss. Look up "game theory" in wikipedia for further reading.
Flovislav 8 months ago
Cut the jingoistic nonsense. Victory goes to the most determined to win, period. Anyone who'd believe the US would turn the oil fields into a radioactive wasteland is not thinking. Every major player on the modern battlefield has strengths and weaknesses and everyone is vulnerable to loss. A global war would very likely kill us all, American, Russian, German, Frenchman...everyone because the resulting economic collapse would be devastating. Try embracing humanity once, you might like it.
dagda825 8 months ago
USA Paranoia.
fonkamex 8 months ago
SOMEWHERE THERE IS PEACE
First of all we must find free oil in Iraq, free gold in Afghanistan, free oil in Libya, allow the banks to commit proactive "designer" fraud and the democratic process "purchased" by the multi nationals, allowing the people to pay for the debts of their leaders and the politicians and industrial military complex and associated global elite and preferred "shareholders" to benefit whilst the world bleeds to death without succour, support. A world without shame or honour.
hotsatsuma2 8 months ago
THE WORLD AS WE KNEW IT
A different place from the total collapse into corruption, theft, rape of nations, lies and fraud. NOT LONG NOW before the world comes to an end. All the while good people remain silent this will never stop. As people complacent, there really is no hope.
In affect that supports what NWO and the USA already know and that is that the "people" are leaderless and the industrial military complex and the banking fraudsters can do "exactly" as they see fit.
jsf
hotsatsuma2 8 months ago
Thats a mentality that would end the world. Someone nukes us, we nuke back leaving 2 cities in the world unliveable for another 600 years. If someone nuke us we would have to surrender and give ourselves up and lose our pride so that the the world won't descend into nuclear fucking fire
AwesomeGamer4 8 months ago
@AwesomeGamer4 If another country nukes us, we would respond with a full nuclear retaliation, which they respond with theirs. then, our allies will nuke their allies and vice versa. So no, 2 cities won't be uninhabitable for 600 years. The earth will be uninhabitable for a thousand years.
brizihe 8 months ago
@brizihe Yeah good point. thanks for the correction
AwesomeGamer4 8 months ago
@Rarogne1926 Now days it would create more problems for the US than it would be worth.
SuperAstrophysicist 8 months ago
The biggest threat to the USA is the USA
jsf
hotsatsuma2 8 months ago 2
@hotsatsuma2 You are quite right :)
rahhuul111 8 months ago
Comment removed
SuperAstrophysicist 8 months ago
Your a dumass you ever hear of M.A.D. (Mutually assured destruction) If you didn't know
JustinEvoy1 8 months ago
Israel is THE nuclear threat to the US and most of the world.
redcorona14 9 months ago
beautiful aircraft.
crassology 9 months ago
Are cruise missles still fitted with warheads etc as i thought the thomahawk missle was no longer fitted with warheads.
sebwilkins 9 months ago
You know, we're probably a danger to ourselves
AwesomeSauce64 9 months ago
i wish the USSR nuked america..... o.o yeah i said it they had more nukes than we did...Soviets own america then, and in vietnam....CCCP for life
DeaththeKiddtk1 9 months ago
You do realize that if you send 66 b-52s to a single place for a airstrike you're going to waste a lot of fuel and alot of them are going to get shot down. And if theres only 66 b-52s I doubt that they'll send more than 1 at a single place.
DKAndrewY 9 months ago
Because people like terrorists don't give a shit whether they live or die, as long as they have killed americans
theleadinbrumie 9 months ago
The US is a nuclear threat itself for all the countries.
miguelhidalgo94 9 months ago
I dont understand what the uploader is trying to prove by talking of B-52s. Strategic Nuclear Bombing has been obsolete for decades. The majority of developed nations have long range SAMs capable of bringing down a B-52 from 100km away. A stratofortress wouldnt come within visual range of China before dozens of KS-1s and HQ-17s had fired missiles at it.
HelmutVillam 9 months ago
got one word in mind.......... PEACE
My5ong 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ohh yes...it REALLY looks like it! Don't make yourself even more of a self-parody.
K1w1scot 10 months ago
Have you been to the nuclear test site tour in Nevada? They do it once a month, first or last Tues. You must be born in the US, no foreigners. But, don't be upset there is a museum in Las Vegas on E.Flamingo right next to the strip, well a block up. You will then learn why it was so important of a program to have, maintain over the years. Several times the russians and Chinese were to use them on us, but overall it's a deterant, not a strike force. Think about it. Thanks
djnonstp 10 months ago
if an afghan of al-qaeda manages to buy a nuke from pakistan, for example, who is america going to retaliate on with nukes?
nindoda 10 months ago
@nindoda Pakistan. Ofcourse.
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@TumisHumis thanks for the opinion. maybe only this way america can prevent it.
nindoda 9 months ago
well, we fail to recognize the major players in the nuclear community, Korea and Iran are very minor players. Russia which has inherited from the former Soviet System as many, if not more, than ours, Red China a long time thermo nuclear power, France and Great Britain. Israel is also a thermonuclear power. Now for the minor players...who aren't that minor, India, Pakistan, N. Korea. Now, honestly, we can't let little fire crackers like Nkorea and Iran set off the big firecrackers. Ok?..
giannivee1 10 months ago
the fact that we have in a single aircraft the firepower to level a mid sized nation keeps people who also have lots of nukes laying around from getting the mistaken impression ANYONE can win a nuclear exchange ( including us). A religious fanatic, or a megalomaniacal sociopath is a wild card, nothing will deter them once they decide to act. So you do your best to keep the folks you can deter deterred, and try to deal with the occasional wild card the best you can.
wbnc66 10 months ago
strategic nuclear bombing is obsolete why does it matter how many pounds a b-52 can carry in nuclear weapons?
Unguidedone 11 months ago
Odds are if a terrorist jihad-ed him/herself with a nuke on our soil we would not strike back with Nuclear Force.
HUTCHtopher 11 months ago
So we should feel safe because a smuggleable nuke that can be detonated because some shitty airplane can fire in vengence
GERMANYisStrong 11 months ago
There is a few facts to bare in mind... Even your smartest president mr. Bush said that its waste of bombs to shoot tents and camels.
Randomnick123 11 months ago
Not to mention that Russia's ballistic missiles are more powerful and they also have a fleet of strategic bombers, which is much larger than the US's strategic bombers fleet. So, yurbud, all your anti-weapons development & procurement propaganda bullshits simply don't stand, because they are not based on reality, a reality in which Russia is superior 2 the US in strategic & also conventional capabilities.
StiviGun1 11 months ago
There is a problem here. One related to logic and knowledge. Iran & N Korea are not nuclear threats 2 US. Russia & China are. And a B-52 has little chances 2 penetrate the Russians airspace in order 2 launch its missiles, which BTW, don't have an over 3000 miles range, they have a range of 2400 km. From that distance they can be engaged with long range missiles or intercepted by fighter-interceptors like SU-27 or MiG-31. So everything u said here yurbud, is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
StiviGun1 11 months ago
This is the most stupid video I've ever seen on Youtube. This motherfucker is an innocent poser who thinks he knows everything. Go get a life you stupid pussy shit.
dzlockon 1 year ago
But Obama is decreasing the nuclear weapons to 0 and the Russians have a lot of nuclear weapons. We're fuked
BlackAces100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because prevention is better than cure
Paulwander 1 year ago
Who would benifit from a nuke war? NOBODY!
tripleeagle4 1 year ago
@tripleeagle4 the united states of america would
theironhorse22 11 months ago
@theironhorse22 A nuclear WAR will bring unimaginable devistation and ruin to any continent(s). The radiation clouds and fallout spells impending obliteration. Let us just all promote a deterant. These nukes are not the Nagasaki or Hiroshima war nukes. Multiply bigboy and littleboy by five-hundred or a thousand times each. With just a few dozen of USA's short range and long range missiles, bombers, subs, and ships nukes launched it's the end of the world that was. Nuclear WAR a NO WIN THE END
tripleeagle4 11 months ago
@tripleeagle4 i still think that if we gotta then we should and thats that country's problem not ours
theironhorse22 11 months ago
@theironhorse22 . NukeWar = endless problems everywhere. Rebuilding and radiation cleanup in any countrys nuke war if they still have civilization there will unfortunately be our problem. If we gotta and we should it'll be our problem too.
tripleeagle4 11 months ago
@tripleeagle4 so wat dont be no environmentalist that all just a bunch af bull shit and environmentalist need to get a life
theironhorse22 11 months ago
@theironhorse22 Yes, and it looks like you need to get an education!
K1w1scot 10 months ago
@K1w1scot shit i got more of a fuckin education than u will ever have!
theironhorse22 10 months ago
@tripleeagle4 WE'LL be alright
theironhors