Originally posted by aws4life

---

nukes arent outdated, just not used. their more used for threatnign the united states these days, lol. and world war 3 would never happen with the nuclear power we have today, its what ended wwII

---

out dated form of warfare, not outdated nukes.

Originally posted by Mike

---

Im pretty sure within the next 10 yrs there will be a world war on

*water
*oil

Both are needed..both are gettin scarce

---

oil? u are crazy. there already solutions produced... like the hydrogen fueled cars [i think its hydrogen], also a way to refine oil from garbage has been found... in a few years then the company really takes off, neither will be a problem.

The problem with that is some oil companies buys out ideas. And then keeps them in a vault. Or burns them...... so they can't lower their profits.

yeah, if we could just have one easily renewable source of power, itd be a better world. We already do have those, its just the compatability issue, cars were first made to run on alchohol! bot ford came along and made the standard gasoline again, but i wanna know how we are getting scarce on water? im not saying it cocky, im just curious ¬_¬

Everyone has nukes now days. And if there was WWiii Nukes are what it would be fought with. What is this "Nukes are an outdated form of warfare" BS. Tell me how they are outdated. Just like our submarines that have been running around for 40 years doing nothing? Or perhaps you are talking about how the US defense is using billions and billions of dollars to create a missle defense system. And alll the other countries are in a huffy about it?

not everybody, just..........

United States
10,455 - Warheads

Russia
8,400 - Warheads

China
400 - Warheads

France
350 - Warheads

Israel
250 - Warheads

United Kingdom
200 - Warheads

India
65 - Warheads

Pakistan
40 - Warheads

North Korea
8 - Warheads

TOTAL
20,168 - Warheads

Nuclear weapons were used as a form of war in the the 1940s. They can only do so much and have adverse effects. They are more of a threat now. You seem to have boughten into the whole scheme of things. Those subs and such are for our defense.

that is not true, country oficials would not oppenly fir nukes at people in a world war for any reason, because we would fire back and kill the civilians, then their country would know they didnt care about them, every leader official is more thratning with them, they will never bee shooting off nukes in all directions like warfare

Who are you saying that to?

My dad used to say: If there's world war 3, will be fighting with sticks and stones for the next war. And honestly, that's a fair assumption. It only takes one pissed off powerful government official to start a nuclear war, aka, WWIII.

Also, despite this being odd, I agree with Zylo for once...

i was sayin it to zylo. John your information i had no arguement about

Originally posted by aws4life

---

i was sayin it to zylo. John your information i had no arguement about

---

use quotes next time

Originally posted by aws4life

---

that is not true, country oficials would not oppenly fir nukes at people in a world war for any reason, because we would fire back and kill the civilians, then their country would know they didnt care about them, every leader official is more thratning with them, they will never bee shooting off nukes in all directions like warfare

---

nukes aren't really gonna be used, they're a deterrant, during the Cold war both US and USSR had nukes but didn't use them.

oh and its the anniversary of the end of WWII about know so

Yeah isnt it called.. National Sorry Day.. or is that just in Japan?

Well in Japan. Its called VJ Day. Victory Japan... atleast in america. The european one was calle VE day.

Originally posted by neojazex

---

Originally posted by aws4life

---

that is not true, country oficials would not oppenly fir nukes at people in a world war for any reason, because we would fire back and kill the civilians, then their country would know they didnt care about them, every leader official is more thratning with them, they will never bee shooting off nukes in all directions like warfare

---

nukes aren't really gonna be used, they're a deterrant, during the Cold war both US and USSR had nukes but didn't use them.

oh and its the anniversary of the end of WWII about know so

---

lol, MAN how many people were killed in the Cold war?....................... 1000000? no less than that......10000............. No less than that.................1000? no less than that...................OH I know ZERO!!! So you have to ask yourself was the cold war really a war? NO it wasn't It was more of an arms race. We never did fight the soviet union. It was close but no cigar. And if we "Did" end of fighting them then we both would have used nukes. The cuban missle crisis? Ever heard of it?

Too JOhn all those countries have nukes and if you add those countries up you end up with most of the world. China has what 3 billion people in it itself? I doubt your figures are right.... Would a military really give away all its secrets? A nuke launched in New York could kill over 5 million people. That almost 9 times more people that are in my state!!! Nukes are bigger than atom bombs and they can build nukes quiet quiete big. Even though its odd... But I'm going to agree with Belial and her dad on this one.

I forget where i got it from, but it was reliable. It was like an online encylopedia or something (name brand one).

Yea I still don't think that militaries would give all the info we have. We could have a warhead under the goverment builind in China or somthing. We could have a weapon 10000X more powerful than a nukee in area 51. I think its a good policy not to give away all your secrets.... Your saying we go to the encyclopedia for our military intelligence? All I"m saying is things could be different than they look.

i never said the cold war was a war, it's just know as the cold war isn't it? and it wasn't just an arms race, it was also a spy vs spy situation...
do you really think both sides would of used nukes? maybe, the most tence time, as you mentioned, was the cuban missile crisis. but would america launched nukes? with the moral JFK in office? and the 'supposed' russian doomsday device?
no. As for russia, it's nukes were mostly in russia, and would have little, if any, effect on america. Those in cuba would have been the only ones capable of hitting america. and then they were removed. Neither side planned to launch nukes... and as for a arms race, you can't get technologicly ahead if the enemy has spys who do their job effectively....

if america would have invaded cuba, it would have been disaterous. Millions would have died. So we are all glad it didn't happen. yadda, yadda, yadda.

But if push came to shove they would have used them. I'm sure the commies would have used them to stop the us marine invasion.

But now a days a lot of missles could hit us. north korea for example was the capabilites of launching biohazerdous, and nuclear warheads at us and hitting us on the west coat. fun fact eh?

No we're not having shortages on gas when its 2.69 per gallon

and on water? your kidding me...look up how much the world consumes in water in a day, or year, and look at our clean water supply