Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 13th, 2012, 03:17 PM   #11

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

I am a bit confused of mentioning U.K. and France only. Like Russia is not in Europe?
dagul is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2012, 03:37 PM   #12

Spartacuss's Avatar
If I'm lyin' I'm dyin'...
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,342

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorian View Post
"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops"
Great movie.
Spartacuss is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 03:49 PM   #13

Stephy's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Germany
Posts: 573
Blog Entries: 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
I am a bit confused of mentioning U.K. and France only. Like Russia is not in Europe?
Part of it is, but how many of the missiles are? Probably more than half I guess.
Stephy is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 03:53 PM   #14

gregorian's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 944

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
I am a bit confused of mentioning U.K. and France only. Like Russia is not in Europe?
Well throwing in Russia changes the story to being about Russia. It changes the idea too much. Not what the OP was intending.

I guess the core question is about whether the nuclear weaponry of the UK and France are significant and effective.
gregorian is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:30 PM   #15

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorian View Post
Well throwing in Russia changes the story to being about Russia. It changes the idea too much. Not what the OP was intending.

I guess the core question is about whether the nuclear weaponry of the UK and France are significant and effective.
I see. It is most probably the significance of their nukes and not necessarily the whole of European powers like Russia.
dagul is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:31 PM   #16

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephy View Post
Part of it is, but how many of the missiles are? Probably more than half I guess.
The larger territory of Russia is in Asia, but, its capital and populated cities are in Europe, and culturally they're Europeans.
dagul is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:51 AM   #17

Naomasa298's Avatar
Suspended over water
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 19,149

The UK nuclear arsenal is carried by Trident missiles supplied by... the US.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 03:07 AM   #18

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 8,453
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
The UK nuclear arsenal is carried by Trident missiles supplied by... the US.
So imagine if they are not able to intercept them. But sometime Americans are surprising ...
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 03:10 AM   #19

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 8,453
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorian View Post
Well throwing in Russia changes the story to being about Russia. It changes the idea too much. Not what the OP was intending.

I guess the core question is about whether the nuclear weaponry of the UK and France are significant and effective.
They are indeed significant and effective [like we can expect to be a couple of nuclear arsenals with decades of experimentation and development]. This is out of doubt.

The doubt is the confrontation with US, who are [theoretically, since our luck is that we have never seen a nuclear war on large scale so far] ready to face a nuclear enemy of the dimensions and capability of USSR, now Russia.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 04:26 AM   #20
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2010
From: Rhondda
Posts: 2,964

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
These are nuclear bombs that we are talking about.... A few submarines could take out the entire city of new York.

So I gues it depends on your definition of very little.

You think those flabs are really going to engage in nuclear war? Come ON!
Iolo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
atomic, europe, war


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How come it took 2 atomic bombs? tedkaw War and Military History 42 April 15th, 2012 01:07 PM
First Atomic Bomb Syryus General History 3 February 16th, 2010 06:26 AM
Truman and the Atomic Bomb Sugadaddy774 General History 83 May 17th, 2009 12:25 AM
No atomic bombs PADDYBOY Speculative History 13 January 30th, 2009 06:26 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.