Stratovarius Community

It's the Civil Defense authority's worst nightmare scenario- a nuclear attack on a major city. It could be a military strike, or as is more likely the case, a terrorist group's ultimate wet dream.

I'll admit that this is a somewhat morbid poll, but it could be considered as "The Ultimate Dead Pool" for those that like to wager.

Washington, in my opinion the Russians will act first.

AGAG wrote:Washington, in my opinion the Russians will act first.

The Cold War is over. Why would Russia nuke Washington?

Those damn conspiracy theorists are at it again. They are spreading rumors that Israel bombed the hotel in Pakistan.
I think its BS like that which will stir up the hornets nest, IMO.

Alot of things are starting to go haywire in this world, from mistrust between nations to the worldwide monetary system. I'm trying not to become pessimistic, and its getting harder everyday.
I won't get too worried, though unless Israel bombs Iran, then I'll know prophecy is being fulfilled. You can laugh now if you want to--you won't think its so funny before its all over.

Carcass wrote:

AGAG wrote:Washington, in my opinion the Russians will act first.

The Cold War is over. Why would Russia nuke Washington?

I suppose because of the Georgian conflict... well Change "Russians" for "Iranians" or "People from any country in the world with nuclear warfare" in my statement.

Riiiight...

Carcass wrote:Riiiight...

Well maybe the other countries will not wait until they see a blast in their cities to take action. When they see that a war is inminent, they'll do something, don't you think a nuclear attack will be considered?.

Maybe its because these days Russia is becoming chummy with nations which despise the USA.

Why the hell would Russia nuke America and for what? Even after Cold War they might not be the biggest fans of USA, but they're still not retarded.

If nuclear war would start, I don't believe Russia or any of the western countries will detonate the first one.

Mormegil wrote:Why the hell would Russia nuke America and for what? Even after Cold War they might not be the biggest fans of USA, but they're still not retarded.

If nuclear war would start, I don't believe Russia or any of the western countries will detonate the first one.

Some people theorize India or Pakistan will be the one. Then, there are those who believe it will be just a "run-of-the-mill" terrorist who sets it off.

Actually, does it really matter? Given the horrible end result of nuclear war its not a matter of who did it, but how to pick up the pieces after such an event occurs. Because, as stupid as it sounds, nuclear war IS "the sum of all fears".

"His name is Death, and Hell followed with Him."

Mormegil wrote:Why the hell would Russia nuke America and for what? Even after Cold War they might not be the biggest fans of USA, but they're still not retarded.

If nuclear war would start, I don't believe Russia or any of the western countries will detonate the first one.

No the Russians are not retarded- in fact, they are anything but. Krushchev backed down and removed missiles from Cuba during the Kennedy administration, and a failure to do so would most definitely have led to WWIII. Also, there was a crazy Russian general back in the 1960's that wanted to quote "annihilate those little yellow eyed bastards", endquote, during border disputes with China- he was removed from his post, and sent to who knows where. Finally, Russia was convinced not to intervene during the Yom Kippur War in 1973- which also would have led to WWIII- this was during the Nixon administration.

Believe it or not, during the administration of George H.W. Bush (the current president's father), India and Pakistan very nearly went to nuclear war, and both the U.S. and Russia were on high alert due to this. Both the White House as well as the Kremlin were known to have issued some fairly blunt warnings via diplomatic channels that an exchange of nuclear fire would not be tolerated by Moscow or Washington. Essentially, the leaders of Pakistan and India were told- if you proceed with this lunacy, we will have no choice but to destroy both of you.

A scary thought, but Washington and Moscow had a moment of solidarity on that problem.

God has "kicked the (Armageddon) can down the road" several times in the last fifty or so years, but there will be a time when He does not- of that we can be certain.

Why would someone want to commit suicide by bombing someone else? To me mutual destruction and trade relations and life itself become a good deterrent. The most likely nuke would be set off by an independent group not attached to any nation's government.

Well I refer to the caption of this thread (a pity that the poll doesn't refer to it) and say: Yes, global warming is a way higher threat than a nuclear attack against ANY city on this planet.

browneyedgirl wrote:Those damn conspiracy theorists are at it again. They are spreading rumors that Israel bombed the hotel in Pakistan.

That's fucking ridiculous!

icecab21 wrote:Why would someone want to commit suicide by bombing someone else? To me mutual destruction and trade relations and life itself become a good deterrent. The most likely nuke would be set off by an independent group not attached to any nation's government.

MAD- (Mutually Assured Destruction) certainly worked during the Cold War- the Russians didn't want to die any more than we did. Unfortunately, these are much more dangerous times.

The Iranian government simply does not have the qualms that Russia did over starting a war- particularly with another nuclear armed state such as Israel. People can say that it's B.S. all that they want, but Iran will have nuclear weapons very soon. Moreover, who is to say that a rogue state or third party would not (or has not) supply/supplied terror groups with bombmaking material and expertise? Al-Qaeda could care less if they bought Russian plutonium, and the atomic signatures after a blast got traced back to a Russian, Iranian, or North Korean reactor.

Things are different now- the Cold War is over, and what we are facing now is significantly more dangerous. Whether a person is religious or secular makes little difference to the enemies of the West- we are living in an Apocalyptic age. Sooner or later, some idiot will set one of these devices off, and the retribution that follows will be a terrible site to behold if America (or Israel) gets hit.

Russia is testing the waters.
Like I said, they are becoming chummy with countries who despise the USA.

Russian warships set sail for manoeuvres near US waters
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Russian_wa ... 22008.html

The USA and West making allies of Israel seems to be a puzzling choice in terms of creating friends and making enemies.

icecab21 wrote:The USA and West making allies of Israel seems to be a puzzling choice in terms of creating friends and making enemies.

On the contrary- show me a single government or regime in history that has had enmity towards the Jews or Israel that actually had a happy ending. Just one will do.

There have been plenty of neutral countries that have not been attacked for their neutrality. In Israel we did not create a setting of peace but a setting of war funded by USA and western welfare. I’m not sure how being against food stamps in the USA, but supporting war aid to Israel works out. That’s only if that is the case. From a secular view this could be seen as picking out some religious reasons to fund things based of a religion made by Jews for Jews against a religion made by Muslims for Muslims that stole from a religion by Jews for Jews and made it to be for their own kind.

Russia is arming Iran.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/russia-to-e ... anger.html

icecab21 wrote:There have been plenty of neutral countries that have not been attacked for their neutrality. In Israel we did not create a setting of peace but a setting of war funded by USA and western welfare. I’m not sure how being against food stamps in the USA, but supporting war aid to Israel works out. That’s only if that is the case. From a secular view this could be seen as picking out some religious reasons to fund things based of a religion made by Jews for Jews against a religion made by Muslims for Muslims that stole from a religion by Jews for Jews and made it to be for their own kind.

Of course, I'm talking about historical governments and/or regimes-

- Egyptians
- Medes
- Babylonian Empire
- Persian Empire
- Roman Empire
- Inquisitors- on behalf of Rome (Vatican)
- The Romanovs (Czarist dynasty)
- Nazi Germany
- Soviet Union

to name just a few- and for a more contemporary example- Saddam is dead, and so is Arafat, as well as Nasser, Hafez Assad, Khomeni, and yet despite all of their attempts- Israel still stands.

It's as if they continue to weave their webs, but have completely forgotten about the spider.

With this many enemies throwing this much effort into their "cause" one would think that people would take a hint after a while.

Nevertheless, people never learn, and won't this time around either until its already too late.

Since when Manhattan is a city?
It's just PART of a city. A borough. Nothing else.

I just think that the more work that can be done to try and connect people and create emotional bonds with each other the better. Both sides have peace keepers and militants and the nonviolence path needs to win. Both sides have people hell-bent on fighting tooth and nail for their cause and that washes out progress towards living together in harmony. There never has been that ideal balance between competition and collaboration and it does not seem there ever will be. When people don't want to feel good or feel good in only in control that puts a damper in creating real relations.

Things get so off balance with this kind of thing. Too many cycles of victim and oppressor but I guess that’s the circle of life.

Equinox wrote:Since when Manhattan is a city?
It's just PART of a city. A borough. Nothing else.

Let's just say that our enemies realize that It's unlikely that a relatively low yield IND (Improvised Nuclear Device) of ten or so kilotons (roughly the explosive force of what was dropped on Hiroshima) would take out all five bouroughs- although the damage would be severe.

Due to Manhattan's dense population in a relatively small area, in addition to being a business, financial, and communications center, as well as all of its popular landmarks, it's a much higher value target than Staten Island or the Bronx. Al-Qaeda would surely consider it to be a 'prestige target' second only to Washington- both of which have already been proven to be on their list.

Any future attack will be far more damaging than the last- which is one reason why we need to continue our campaign against the enemy- and to keep him off balance, and on the run. Taking the fight to him, and laying down a series of persistent and devastating blows is the only thing he will understand or respect.

IMO many countries that hate the US will be willing to give thier lives for the cause, so even if bombing the US means obvious suicide they would still be willing to do so. Some examples: Japanese Kamikaze pilots during WW2, bomb cars during terrorist attacks to US embassies and more recently 9/11.

Some of this is gun in the back stuff like the Soviet Union did or a deal that sets up the family for life economically like the radical Muslims are doing. The USA also tries to teach that dying for a cause is a noble act of faith for the cause. If only there was a way for people to die for their cause without actually hurting others. We keep creating catch 22s. Like with Japan in ww2, the USA guys are told that Japan will fight unconditionally to the death, meanwhile, the Japan guys are told that the USA will kill them no matter what they do.

AGAG wrote:IMO many countries that hate the US will be willing to give their lives for the cause, so even if bombing the US means obvious suicide they would still be willing to do so. Some examples: Japanese Kamikaze pilots during WW2, bomb cars during terrorist attacks to US embassies and more recently 9/11.

Perhaps not entire countries (in this day and age), would be foolish enough to launch an ICBM missile at the US, but most certainly rogue elements and groups would love to detonate something of a smaller scale inside of our borders. I can almost sense that they are already here, and believe that something might even occur during election time.

The Kamikaze illustration was very good- it showed Japan at its most desperate, and even U.S. Admiral Chester Nimitz said that it was the only Japanese weapon that he truly feared.

Fortunately, suicide attacks rarely, if ever, bring victory. General George S. Patton, who like Nimitz, was one of America's truly great commanders, had said this during a speech-

"Men, the entire objective of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his."

icecab21 wrote:Like with Japan in ww2, the USA guys are told that Japan will fight unconditionally to the death, meanwhile, the Japan guys are told that the USA will kill them no matter what they do.

There is a degree of truth in that-

At the Battle of Iwo Jima, there were 21,000 defenders on the island. Only about 1,000 survived.

During the Battle of the Ardennes, the U.S. 101st Airborne was surrounded by German forces near Bastonge, and the German commander demanded their surrender. U.S. General McCauliffe sent a one word reply-

"Nuts!"

Yes, governments will not be so foolish. Not a single government (Publically) could order terrorist or nuclear attacks towards another one, however they could (And we can't prove this hasn't happened) hire some guys to fly a plane with some nukes and blast the US (Or any other country for that matter).

So I think it would be possible to see some 9/11-like attacks in the future, maybe with nuclear warfare...

And suicide tactics may not bring victory nowadays, but if you don't care about life and are willing to commit suicide, why don't take as many lives as you can with you? From that point of view, it's a nice philosophy in my opinion.

Many biblical scholars believe the bear in Daniel(old testament prophecy)is referring to Russia.
http://www.abbaswatchman.com/PAGE%206%2 ... USSIA.html

However, many others(including CoC) think Daniel was referring to Persia during the Cyrus/Xerxes/Darius era.

Maybe miditek can help out on this.

Miami.