Avatar feed
Responses: 3
PO3 Donald Murphy
2
2
0
"Having" a nuke and "using" a nuke are two different things. For a lot of nations, the "having" part is deterrent enough or leverage enough for their local business. Case in point being India and Pakistan. It is debatable whether or not either country could survive its own weapons launches. But - when your target is one rickshaw away, that hardly matters. Same with North Korea. They will talk nuke, play nuke and basically throw a parade full of trucks towing "nuke like" objects on them (covered with a silver shroud to add to the bullshit) but its highly unlikely that little Kim could hurt anyone other than a few peasants unlucky enough to be under the big-dong-II (or whatever name it is...) when it falls back to its pad during launch and detonates.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Combat Engineer
1
1
0
Nuclear weapons were inevitable. Even if you eliminated them all tonight, somebody could start building more at any moment in the future.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Military Police Instructor
1
1
0
Ok, ok.....On the count of three, we BOTH get rid of them....
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close