US wouldn't use nukes if used in korea - - absolutely no need to. We have a very capable army and very precise weapons.
'Nam 2030?Radeonx said:You do realize that America was in the Korean war that was 60 years ago, right? And they actually had a reason to be there. It's basically fighting old battles, which is stupid, but I can see why we'd want to fight them.
...In America!Jack and Calumon said:Why do I now have the image of Obama saying, "Shut the hell up." And hitting the launch button first? My god that would be strange.
Yeah, so tell me how the vaults work out America!
Calumon: Protect Bandit Keith!
Ha! I never knew that. Well, the more you know.snave said:Just to fact correct here. That "old battle" is technically not old. The Korean War never truly ended: a peace treaty was never signed. Really, both sides just gave up on fighting it. As such it stands to this day as the longest running currently-active military conflict in the world.Radeonx said:You do realize that America was in the Korean war that was 60 years ago, right? And they actually had a reason to be there. It's basically fighting old battles, which is stupid, but I can see why we'd want to fight them.
Personally, whoever fires the nuke second. It's pretty difficult to get on the side of someone who decided to start a nuclear war, and is easier to side with whoever fires in retaliation.Subzerowings said:The discussion here is: "Who do you side with and what should happen?
You say that as if there are in fact such things as good nukes.Scrumpmonkey said:No i mean who would take the time/ funds to nuke it? It's like nuking gilford. Just seems like a waste of good nukes.AwesomeFerret said:Why take the chance? He should get to the UK as fast as he can. Even if there never is a war, he would still be better off for living in the UK.Scrumpmonkey said:Who would bother to nuke Canada?Eggsnham said:Looks like I'm moving to the UK a bit earlier than expected.
I wonder if Canada's safe?![]()