I have a serious question...

[Big Dad]

The nuclear posture of the country (U.S. military) is more relaxed than in previous years.

[Big Dad]

I'm new to this forum...old person with technology. I won't point out that someone is clueless. I'll clarify and validate their question. Things are better.

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

The nuclear posture of the country (U.S. military) is more relaxed than in previous years.

No, we have the Pakistan and India threat, the Iran and Isreal threat, the Syrians, the Saudi's...the east/middle east is where we were with russia in the 80's.

[HummBebe]

Simply put, as 3rd world countries increase their technology, they get a little drunk with power until some slaps them down. North Korea? China? Same sh1t different countries.

[Big Dad]

Originally Posted by HummBebe

No, we have the Pakistan and India threat, the Iran and Isreal threat, the Syrians, the Saudi's...the east/middle east is where we were with russia in the 80's.

In contrast to these threats, the US no longer has airplanes orbiting 24/7 waiting to give a "launch the nuclear arsenal" in response to a Russian or Chinese nuclear attack i.e. the 1980's.

[Big Dad]

I disagree, I think it's totally a different bucket of $hit. Just not so bad as "global nuclear annihilation."

[Big Dad]

Are you of the "duck and cover" generation?

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

In contrast to these threats, the US no longer has airplanes orbiting 24/7 waiting to give a "launch the nuclear arsenal" in response to a Russian or Chinese nuclear attack i.e. the 1980's.

That we know of

[Big Dad]

Originally Posted by HummBebe

That we know of

I used to fly with the big white whale aka my avatar the (Doomsday machine) E-4 aircraft. Things have changed since the days of having to find a landing spot somewhere on the planet after a nuclear attack.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

In contrast to these threats, the US no longer has airplanes orbiting 24/7 waiting to give a "launch the nuclear arsenal" in response to a Russian or Chinese nuclear attack i.e. the 1980's.

Right. The big difference from past foes is the asymetrical character of the order of battle now. By way of comparison, it took all the might of the U.S., Russia, France, and Britain and 20 million dead to take down the Kaiser in 1918--though Russia collapsed and we entered late.

It took all the might of most of the world's industrialized powers, minus the Krauts, Wops, and Japs, to take down the Axis in WWII at a cost of 55 million dead (we lost about 400,000 dead).

During the 45-year Cold War, we faced the constant threat of immediate attack by thousands of ICBMs containing tens of thousands of megatons of nuclear explosives--possibly enough to kill every living thing in North America (even the Canadians; note that they are very hardy creatures, much like the cockroaches who survived the great meteor impact that destroyed the dinosaurs 60 million years ago, but even the Canadians might not survive a full ICBM strike by the Kremlin).

We still have the possibility of a a nuclear strike, but on a much, much smaller scale. Much of the Russian arsenal is out of action (it costs many $billions to keep a large arsenal maintained and functional; only we can, and do, afford that). India and Pakistan don't have any reliable way to deliver nukes to Omaha. China can deliver some accross the Pacific, but not like the thousands the USSR could. North Korea is not a nuclear threat at this time. Trust me.

Keep in mind that, unlike the foes we have faced in the past, who it us took years and hundreds of thousands of American dead died to defeat (it would have cost many millions of American lives taking down the USSR militarily), with our nuclear arsenal, we can kill every living creature in the Middle East in a few minutes with the push of a few buttons.

Never forget that. The menace we face is annoying and threatening. It has harrassed us and knocked some buildings down. It must be dealt with. But it can't threaten us with annihilation like past foes could. If they blow up something big here, we know, and they know, we can kill every one of them in short order. We didn't have that option with Germany (twice) or with the USSR. China may be a military threat in a couple of decades, but they're still quite a ways off in that regard.

[3Hummer]

everything goes in a cycle of up and down, every country has been that way, and continue to be that way.

[BlueTJCO]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Right. The big difference from past foes is the asymetrical character of the order of battle now. By way of comparison, it took all the might of the U.S., Russia, France, and Britain and 20 million dead to take down the Kaiser in 1918--though Russia collapsed and we entered late.

It took all the might of most of the world's industrialized powers, minus the Krauts, Wops, and Japs, to take down the Axis in WWII at a cost of 55 million dead (we lost about 400,000 dead).

During the 45-year Cold War, we faced the constant threat of immediate attack by thousands of ICBMs containing tens of thousands of megatons of nuclear explosives--possibly enough to kill every living thing in North America (even the Canadians; note that they are very hardy creatures, much like the cockroaches who survived the great meteor impact that destroyed the dinosaurs 60 million years ago, but even the Canadians might not survive a full ICBM strike by the Kremlin).

We still have the possibility of a a nuclear strike, but on a much, much smaller scale. Much of the Russian arsenal is out of action (it costs many $billions to keep a large arsenal maintained and functional; only we can, and do, afford that). India and Pakistan don't have any reliable way to deliver nukes to Omaha. China can deliver some accross the Pacific, but not like the thousands the USSR could. North Korea is not a nuclear threat at this time. Trust me.

Keep in mind that, unlike the foes we have faced in the past, who it us took years and hundreds of thousands of American dead died to defeat (it would have cost many millions of American lives taking down the USSR militarily), with our nuclear arsenal, we can kill every living creature in the Middle East in a few minutes with the push of a few buttons.

Never forget that. The menace we face is annoying and threatening. It has harrassed us and knocked some buildings down. It must be dealt with. But it can't threaten us with annihilation like past foes could. If they blow up something big here, we know, and they know, we can kill every one of them in short order. We didn't have that option with Germany (twice) or with the USSR. China may be a military threat in a couple of decades, but they're still quite a ways off in that regard.

[Big Dad]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Right. The big difference from past foes is the asymetrical character of the order of battle now. By way of comparison, it took all the might of the U.S., Russia, France, and Britain and 20 million dead to take down the Kaiser in 1918--though Russia collapsed and we entered late.

It took all the might of most of the world's industrialized powers, minus the Krauts, Wops, and Japs, to take down the Axis in WWII at a cost of 55 million dead (we lost about 400,000 dead).

During the 45-year Cold War, we faced the constant threat of immediate attack by thousands of ICBMs containing tens of thousands of megatons of nuclear explosives--possibly enough to kill every living thing in North America (even the Canadians; note that they are very hardy creatures, much like the cockroaches who survived the great meteor impact that destroyed the dinosaurs 60 million years ago, but even the Canadians might not survive a full ICBM strike by the Kremlin).

We still have the possibility of a a nuclear strike, but on a much, much smaller scale. Much of the Russian arsenal is out of action (it costs many $billions to keep a large arsenal maintained and functional; only we can, and do, afford that). India and Pakistan don't have any reliable way to deliver nukes to Omaha. China can deliver some accross the Pacific, but not like the thousands the USSR could. North Korea is not a nuclear threat at this time. Trust me.

Keep in mind that, unlike the foes we have faced in the past, who it us took years and hundreds of thousands of American dead died to defeat (it would have cost many millions of American lives taking down the USSR militarily), with our nuclear arsenal, we can kill every living creature in the Middle East in a few minutes with the push of a few buttons.

Never forget that. The menace we face is annoying and threatening. It has harrassed us and knocked some buildings down. It must be dealt with. But it can't threaten us with annihilation like past foes could. If they blow up something big here, we know, and they know, we can kill every one of them in short order. We didn't have that option with Germany (twice) or with the USSR. China may be a military threat in a couple of decades, but they're still quite a ways off in that regard.

"I like the way you talk (type) mhmmm" and the fact that you go back to the "Great War" trench warfare. You should have brought up the fact that the Germans and the Brits actually were humane enough to have the Christmas truce in the trenches, share food and drink, and play football. And, then, resume the battle. I think that it illustrates a sobering reality in contrast to the enemy of today.

As far as Iran is concerned...and I would compare Iran with the Nat, on your ass, while taking a well-deserved $hit, at the end, of a successful moose hunt. You just don't want to get any on your hands once you deep six it. I'm also a DS vet...the only thing I might differ from you is that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad the first time. The older I get the more it pisses me off. But, then that's the congress....