DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Nukes, Alexander, Hannibal, Genghis and Napoleon

***Playergirl*** · 12-14-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Wycoff

I call their bluff. They've crippled the navy; crippling their major strategic center is the U.S.' only hope of winning this war if it otherwise stays "coventional." I nuke Kaliningrad, because I'm forced to. It's the only way to level the playing field; otherwise we've lost the war. If they respond with an all out nuclear assault, then so do I. an then you die. I forgot to mention that with the note, they also offered to negotiate an end to the war, with fairly reasonable terms - the demilitirization of West Germany or something like that - not the end of liberty in the US. Is it worth initiating a globe destroying nuclear exchange for some strategic issue? And if it is, then wouldnt it have been so WITHOUT the Soviet first strike, which would prove MAD a failure?

12-14-2006, 06:32 PM	#5
*Playergirl* Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 440 Senior Member	Originally posted by Wycoff I call their bluff. They've crippled the navy; crippling their major strategic center is the U.S.' only hope of winning this war if it otherwise stays "coventional." I nuke Kaliningrad, because I'm forced to. It's the only way to level the playing field; otherwise we've lost the war. If they respond with an all out nuclear assault, then so do I. an then you die. I forgot to mention that with the note, they also offered to negotiate an end to the war, with fairly reasonable terms - the demilitirization of West Germany or something like that - not the end of liberty in the US. Is it worth initiating a globe destroying nuclear exchange for some strategic issue? And if it is, then wouldnt it have been so WITHOUT the Soviet first strike, which would prove MAD a failure?
	Quote